Jack Kemp says give rights back to felons..


PDA






jsalcedo
October 19, 2005, 09:15 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051018/ap_on_go_co/voting_rights

Kemp Says Ex-Felons Should Be Able to Vote

By JEFFREY McMURRAY,
Associated Press Writer Tue Oct 18, 7:39 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Jack Kemp, the former Republican vice presidential
candidate and HUD secretary, urged Congress on Tuesday to require
states to restore voting rights for felons once they complete their
sentences.

Kemp, who was Bob Dole's running mate in 1996, made the recommendation
during the first in a series of hearings about the Voting Rights Act,
which prohibits literacy tests, poll taxes and other infringements on
minority voting.

Some key provisions of the 40-year-old law expire in 2007. One
requires areas with a history of discrimination to get federal
approval before changing their election laws.

Congress is expected to extend that provision for 25 years, but the
House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution is trying
to determine whether the law should be tweaked.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., stirred the
lone moment of dissent among witnesses with his suggestion that
Congress should amend the act to guarantee voting rights for
ex-felons.

"It's important, if we're going to call ourselves a democracy, that
everybody more or less have the right to vote," Nadler said.

Kemp quickly endorsed the idea, pointing out that minorities are
disproportionately charged with felonies.

"My answer is unambiguously yes," said Kemp, a former congressman from
New York, one of a handful of states that restores voting rights to
criminals once they complete their prison term or probation. "It is a
restriction that needs to be modified."

Former Colorado Lt. Gov. Joe Rogers, a member of a national commission
on the Voting Rights Act, disagreed. He said states should be able to
set their own requirements and argued that the number of felons isn't
high enough to influence elections.

------------------------------------------------------------------

If drunk driving was a felony - as it should be - then millions of
white people would be felons and we wouldn't even be debating this.

If you enjoyed reading about "Jack Kemp says give rights back to felons.." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
GTSteve03
October 19, 2005, 09:34 AM
More felonies + no gun ownership for felons + no voting = lots less pesky rights you have to dole out to your grateful citizenship. :rolleyes:

beerslurpy
October 19, 2005, 09:36 AM
Felons voting = democrats retake Florida and many other states.

Just so you know. We are talking about disenfranchising the looter class that dwells in the public housing projects, not stock traders that got caught using a hot stock tip. If you have the money, you can always use the courts to have your rights restored.

Disenfranchising felons is the first step towards fixing what is wrong with America. It may not seem fair, but neither is the welfare state we are paying for.

GTSteve03
October 19, 2005, 09:44 AM
Just so you know. We are talking about disenfranchising the looter class that dwells in the public housing projects, not stock traders that got caught using a hot stock tip. If you have the money, you can always use the courts to have your rights restored.
I'm glad to see that my rights are proportional to the size of my bank account.

Disenfranchising felons is the first step towards fixing what is wrong with America. It may not seem fair, but neither is the welfare state we are paying for.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, except if they've gone to jail for a felony."

beerslurpy
October 19, 2005, 09:51 AM
I understand the principle you are expressing, but you are seriously naive if you think this is some money test for voting like a poll tax. This is about removing the worst of the welfare rats from the political scene. These people are not only on the dole but committing serious crimes as well. If, even after the NOLA disaster, you cannot see why this is a good safeguard to have, then there is really no point in explaining it to you.

If anything, we should amend the constitution so that anyone receiving an entitlement in the past 5 years cannot vote. It is all about taking away the ability of politcians to bribe the voters with their own money. End that and you end socialism forever.

c_yeager
October 19, 2005, 09:53 AM
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, except if they've gone to jail for a felony, then they only get the ones we choose."


I like that you quote the declaration of independance as though it were some kind of law-giving document. If you would take the time to consult an ACTUAL legal document, like say the CONSTITUTION, you would see that the right to vote is NOT an inalianable human right. It is the only enumerated right that comes with a list of conditions. Those conditions includs being a "citizen" and being of a certain age and also mention that they must not be criminals.

article XIV
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


Subsequent amendments to the constitution enumerated various criteria that could *not* be used by the states to determine the right to vote. Those include sex, race, religion and creed. Beyond that it is well within the limits of the constitution that there be qualifications on who is allowed to vote.

beerslurpy
October 19, 2005, 09:58 AM
If anything, I think Illinois needs a bar on voting for felons and dead people.

Augustwest
October 19, 2005, 09:58 AM
...and argued that the number of felons isn't high enough to influence elections.

So individual rights be danged, we'll only do something about it if it affects our chances of being elected... :banghead:

geekWithA.45
October 19, 2005, 10:03 AM
I'd be in favor of a _process_ that can ultimately lead to restoration of full citizenship rights, so that the motivated and truly reformed could get back into the game, but I'd not hand it out automatically at the jailhouse gate.

Say, X years of good behavior, or a grand jury panel that felons could appeal to every so often.

Alternately, we could make a finding of a jury necessary for stripping of citizen's rights as a separate phase of conviction.

c_yeager
October 19, 2005, 10:05 AM
I'd be in favor of a _process_ that can ultimately lead to restoration of full citizenship rights, so that the motivated and truly reformed could get back into the game, but I'd not hand it out automatically at the jailhouse gate.


This process exists at the state level, and it includes the right to bear arms as well.

GTSteve03
October 19, 2005, 10:07 AM
Subsequent amendments to the constitution enumerated various criteria that could *not* be used by the states to determine the right to vote. Those include sex, race, religion and creed. Beyond that it is well within the limits of the constitution that there be qualifications on who is allowed to vote.
Based on your quote then anyone who has ever committed any crime should be barred from voting. Which I think most anyone would say is a rather preposterous position to take. However, barring felons seems to be a much more defensible stance, until you take into account how many new crimes and older crimes are being re-classified as felonies, making the pool of ineligble voters much larger until we do in fact get very close to the original, IMHO preposterous idea that all criminals should be barred from voting.

But hey, I'm not a rich politician so it really doesn't matter what I think anyhoo. :banghead:

MechAg94
October 19, 2005, 10:09 AM
I always figured that if you don't respect the laws of our country, that you shouldn't be allowed to fully participate.
I don't have a problem with a system to restore some rights, but there should be a some time period after the sentence is carried out (5 years?) and it should not be automatic, IMHO. As long as punishment for many offenses do not fit the crime, I will not favor going easy on felons. That needs to be changed first.

On the welfare part, I would say that you should not be able to vote if you personally take 1 penny more from the govt than you pay in taxes (after deductions, rebates, tax returns, etc.). I think that should apply to govt jobs as well.

Mk VII
October 19, 2005, 10:12 AM
Here, the European Court of Human Rights has just ordered us to let the convicts in the jails vote.

Henry Bowman
October 19, 2005, 10:29 AM
This process exists at the state level, and it includes the right to bear arms as well.This process also exists at the federal level (re: right to bear arms) and authority has been assigned to BATFE. However, Congress has also prohibited BATFE from using any funds to engage in this process.

Catch-22

Chrontius
October 19, 2005, 10:52 AM
I always figured that if you don't respect the laws of our country, that you shouldn't be allowed to fully participate.
I don't have a problem with a system to restore some rights, but there should be a some time period after the sentence is carried out (5 years?) and it should not be automatic, IMHO. As long as punishment for many offenses do not fit the crime, I will not favor going easy on felons. That needs to be changed first. Like paying damages of about six billion dollars for one iPod worth of music off of Kazaa? Or criminal charges for Windows (default settings, even) 'hacking' a gaping, wide-open wireless network announcing free wi-fi for all? Yeah, the punishment really should fit the crime.

On the welfare part, I would say that you should not be able to vote if you personally take 1 penny more from the govt than you pay in taxes (after deductions, rebates, tax returns, etc.). I think that should apply to govt jobs as well. I'd *hate* to be in the millitary if you were president. I'd also hate to be in the gun industry, since getting a government contract could be interpreted as being in government employ.

RealGun
October 19, 2005, 10:59 AM
We already have millions of criminals voting. They just never got caught. What's a few more? If one has completed parole, what's the argument against returning to full citizenship? Overcrowded prisons is not a controlling argument.

Gunsnrovers
October 19, 2005, 11:03 AM
Seems like a catch 22. Once you have served your punishment, your rights should be restored. However, we have a system that has very screwed up punishments.

Can you fix one issue without addressing the other?

mec
October 19, 2005, 11:22 AM
"Here, the European Court of Human Rights has just ordered us to let the convicts in the jails vote"

Our democrat party has been pushing the same thing here. They figure it's a ready-made voting block for their party.

Waitone
October 19, 2005, 12:21 PM
Here, the European Court of Human Rights has just ordered us to let the convicts in the jails vote.Lovely. :scrutiny:

pcf
October 19, 2005, 12:39 PM
Oh dear, we'll have disenfranchised voters from all over, flooding the polling places, waiting to perform there civic duty of voting. Just like the "vote or die" MTV generation did in 2004. You know, flooding the polling places, getting the vote out. Without the MTV generation, Democrats would have lost big in 2004.

Funny thing about civic duties, people that skip one tend to skip them all, without the government's help or restriction. If ex-felons could vote, how many would? I'd wager very few. As a whole we're lucky to get 50% of the "law abiding" to a polling place. Apathy.

Hell, if the people are so worried about what ex-felons might do at the polls, let it be their motivation to go and vote as well. It would be a good dose of what this country needs. Being concerned and having to make an educated, responsible vote may be the beginning of the end for us all. It's fear mongering, Congress will have to convene a joint committee to do a study on it, not healthy. Moreover, political activism because one wishes to protect his interest, won't bode well for the new totalitarian state or the United Nations.

Supposedly, we convict people in courts for their crimes, sentence them to a punishment. The legislature sets out the guidelines that the courts operate under. Except when it fits in our "greater good", then it's acceptable for the legislature and courts to do an end-run around each others specified powers.

pcf
October 19, 2005, 12:42 PM
Voting Felons could be a blessing in disguise. They would help further Libertarian interest by ending and reducing a growing Police-State, ease restriction on gun control, and end the War on Drugs.

lostone1413
October 19, 2005, 03:14 PM
HEY KEMP YOU JERK!!
How about being worried about the rights us NON FELONS have lost! Try looking at Campaign Reform, Homeland Security, Patroit Act. After 911 how safe are we with over 1 million illegals a year just coming across the border? Say and while you are at it you JERK seems the Constitution had something in it called a Bill Of Rights. Seems in that Bill Of Rights their was something called a 2nd amendment. Your just like the rest of the A**holes that run the country. You could care less about the common man!!!!!!!!

thorn726
October 19, 2005, 03:21 PM
MANY
states already allow felons to vote.
CA law says on the reg from-
"you are not IN prison or on parole"

notice it does not mention previous convictions, or YES, even jail- in JAIL Californians can vote.

HEY- felons still pay taxes!!! they are still alive, if they are in society they have every right to vote.
some info from antoher site=

Each state has its own laws regarding the loss of the right to vote if convicted of a felony. In Maine and Vermont, you do not lose the right to vote. In every other state, persons convicted of a felony lose the right to vote for a period of time. Contact the state elections office in the state where convicted to find out how to restore the right to vote. For example, some states restore the right to vote as soon as the term of incarceration is completed. If you would be eligible to vote in the state where you were convicted, you are eligible to vote in Washington.


especially considering how many minor things are felonies these days.

PS- all you guys who routinely commit carry or other felonies (maybe you got a gun you shouldnt , etc)
YOU ARE STILL FELONS. you might not be CONVICTED felons, but you are felons

c_yeager
October 19, 2005, 03:30 PM
Based on your quote then anyone who has ever committed any crime should be barred from voting. Which I think most anyone would say is a rather preposterous position to take.

Your calling a direct quote from the U.S. Constitution a "position"? :uhoh:

What the passage means is that anyone who has ever commited a crime *CAN* be barred from voting, deciding which crimes qualify is a matter of legislation.

RealGun
October 19, 2005, 04:11 PM
or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

I wouldn't be too smug about quoting the Constitution. That phrase can mean anything a legal eagle wants it to mean. If I have a traffic ticket, where does that leave me? It doesn't say felony. If I participate on a forum that never has anything nice to say about government, often proposing some pretty radical action, am I participating in a rebellion? Who defines "rebellion"? There has to be a lot of faith in the court's interpretation, and we know where that gets us.

If I served my time or paid the fine for a crime, when if ever am I free of it. Should you just shoot me like the dog that bites?

Citizens of the Confederacy, participants in a rebellion, did not lose their right, make that privilege, to vote.

MechAg94
October 19, 2005, 04:21 PM
Actually, CSA citizens did lose their right to vote I think. I believe they made them swear an oath or something before being able to vote again. I am not sure if everyone actually did.

How you define a felony is another matter altogether and is probably one in need of changes. No one respects a law unless the punishment is a felony these days so everything becomes a felony. It just erodes the overall system.

Seems like we have felon rights, criminal punishment issues, and criminal punishment definitions all being argued together here. We can fix all three or fix one at a time, but don't bash someone's solution to one question over problems resulting from another. Nothing will ever get done that way.

MechAg94
October 19, 2005, 04:29 PM
Like paying damages of about six billion dollars for one iPod worth of music off of Kazaa? Or criminal charges for Windows (default settings, even) 'hacking' a gaping, wide-open wireless network announcing free wi-fi for all? Yeah, the punishment really should fit the crime.
Intellectual property does have value. Just because someone leaves the door open, doesn't give you the right to waltz in and take stuff. As for $6 billion, that is another one of those "crime fits the punishment" issues.

Flyboy
October 19, 2005, 07:54 PM
We are talking about disenfranchising the looter class that dwells in the public housing projects
Ah, I see. Well, as long as we're only disenfranchising the "undesirables," those of a lower caste, and the people in the projects, I guess it's all right then.

I really hope you never get convicted of a felony. But I'd be willing to bet you've committed one (or more). It's nigh-unto-impossible not to anymore, especially for a gunowner.

If you have the money, you can always use the courts to have your rights restored.
Again, you're only allowed to have rights if you have money? I think you would have enjoyed feudalism more than our current system--provided, of course, that you were the Lord of the manor.

DeseoUnTaco
October 19, 2005, 07:59 PM
I support the idea of felons getting back their voting rights, and also having a process for getting back their gun rights.

The funny thing is, if this law passes, the Dems will suddenly have a good majority in Florida and some other states. Giving the vote back to the millions of felons in this country will dramatically change the balance of power. Most felons will probably vote Democratic.

So if we give them their rights back we're going to lose a lot more of our rights, including the RKBA.

So I don't know what to do. Clearly felons are going to favor gun control. It's a "workplace safety" issue for them.

Chrontius
October 19, 2005, 08:18 PM
Voting Felons could be a blessing in disguise. They would help further Libertarian interest by ending and reducing a growing Police-State, ease restriction on gun control, and end the War on Drugs.

Rule #29: The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy, no more, no less. From The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Pirates.

Intellectual property does have value. Just because someone leaves the door open, doesn't give you the right to waltz in and take stuff. As for $6 billion, that is another one of those "crime fits the punishment" issues.Yes, it does -- I never said it didn't. However, when the owner's proxy is announcing free bandwidth for all and the owner turns around and presses charges, either:
The owner is a moron
The owner is evil and committing entrapment

Either way, some people should not breed.

C.S.Powell
October 19, 2005, 09:46 PM
It was once said by someone that I can't remember "Nothing in Government ever happens by chance".

:mad: Rights back to fellons, they paid their dues to society.

What is really ment: We give felons back all rights, former felons take advantage of rights. Rehabilitated felon now buys legal firearm. RECIDIVISM, rehabilitated felon commits felony again but now with legal firearm. Brady Bunch says more gun control because lawfully purchased firearm use in felonies sky rocketing. Public brainwashed by left wing nightly news. New laws to protect public from legal firearm owners that are now commiting more felonies than anytime in history.

Knock, knock we are here for your guns!!!!!

DRZinn
October 19, 2005, 10:15 PM
Our democrat party has been pushing the same thing here. They figure it's a ready-made voting block for their party.And they're right.

beerslurpy
October 20, 2005, 12:01 AM
There are two problems here and this proposal is the wrong solution to both of them.

Problem 1 is that a great deal of things are crimes that should not be crimes, and a great deal of crimes are felonies that should not be so.

Problem 2 is that there is a significant criminal underclass in our soceity. These people love to be bribed from the pockets of honest taxpayers, since this is basically what they do for a living, only they cant be arrested when the government does it for them. The poorer and lazier the voters are on average, the more likely they are to vote for socialism and big government. Letting felons vote would be a huge win for the socialist left that has spent the past 25 years losing ground to conservatism.

In the bad old days of direct democracy, why do you think voting rights were restricted to landowners? For the obvious reasons that relatively poor voters would use the law to rob the wealthy and give to themselves. Our Constitutional Republic was meant as a safeguard against the tyranny of the masses. Due to the partial disintegration of this system under the weight of a century of populism and socialism, it is increasingly difficult to rely on these masses to exercise restraint. In our current system, 95 of the taxes are paid by only 5 percent of the voters, and nearly half of the voters pay no taxes at all. Something tells me the wolves already voted on what to have for dinner.

This proposed solution does not fix 1 and makes problem 2 infinitely worse.

A better solution would be to
a) get real conservatives on the supreme court and hopefully bring back something approaching the Lochner era (tinged with slightly more respect for state legislatures)
b) Start killing off entitlement programs, starting with the medical ones.
c) Privatize old age pensions.
d) Start a seemingly benign school improvement program that shuts down bad schools but allows parents to transfer their children into nearby good schools. Lol domino.
e) Offer extravagant handouts to anyone that will join the military. Then start a prolonged and bloody war to kill them off.

Some of these have already been started, though bush obviously is coming up short on the "appoint conservative justices" part.

Crosshair
October 20, 2005, 12:40 AM
Considering the pros and cons of this. I think it would be a good idea to let felons vote again. Once they serve their term, let them have a voice again.

Flyboy
October 20, 2005, 02:17 AM
[citizens] take advantage of rights.
Heaven forfend!

c_yeager
October 20, 2005, 02:25 AM
I wouldn't be too smug about quoting the Constitution. That phrase can mean anything a legal eagle wants it to mean. If I have a traffic ticket, where does that leave me? It doesn't say felony. If I participate on a forum that never has anything nice to say about government, often proposing some pretty radical action, am I participating in a rebellion? Who defines "rebellion"? There has to be a lot of faith in the court's interpretation, and we know where that gets us.


All those terms and the crimes that qualiy for disenfranchisment (is that a word?) are matters of legislature. The constitution leaves open ample room for our government to screw us in innovative new ways, thats why we have checks and balances, but if the whole thing spins out of control then things get really interesting.

RealGun
October 20, 2005, 07:32 AM
The constitution leaves open ample room for our government to screw us in innovative new ways, - c_yeager

Only if courts take license to see it that way. It doesn't mean what it says. It means more than it says. It means less than it says.

Mr.V.
October 20, 2005, 08:00 AM
Beerslurpy--

Those are some fantastic suggestions. Maybe after we get rid of medical benefits only rich people can survive cancer. I do hate it when poor people also can get chemotherapy. They really should have been rich.

Also I would love to have lots of women die every year in childbirth because they couldn't afford the $35,000 bill to have a competent delivery. That way we can have tons of orphans again and it'll be just like Oliver Twist! Now that's an era I'd love to go back to...

All of your suggestions would lead to one thing, a gigantic have have-not divide. And if the past is any example, governments tend to have trouble with stability when too many people have way too little. And the haves tend to have trouble keeping their heads stably attached to their bodies.

So if the big bad government takes away your summer home in the bahamas so that a single mother of two whose husband ditched her can at least have a junky apartment to live in...I'd say it's time you packed away your bermuda shorts...:neener:

RealGun
October 20, 2005, 09:04 AM
You shouldn't be sparring when the real problem is the obscene cost of medical care and prescription drugs. It controls people's lives in all sorts of ways. Private medical care and prescription drugs should be available to those who can afford it. Taxpayer funded, price controlled doctors, clinics, hospitals, and pharmacies should be an option available to everyone and no one should have to pay insurance premiums that wouldn't cover much anyway. Lots of arguments I guess but no better ideas. It is just an extension of VA medical care.

beerslurpy
October 20, 2005, 09:33 AM
You are severely misled. My dad delivered myself and my 3 siblings. Total cost, a few bucks. My ancestors were brought into the world in a similar manner, as I'm sure were most of yours. Midwifery works and has worked for millenia. The concept of paying 35k for something your wife is already perfectly equipped for is beyond retarded.

Giving chemo to someone who can be saved is one thing- what we do is another. We spend vast millions dragging out hopeless cases in the interests of "compassion"- where do you think the euthanasia debate came from? Old people who want the cruel joke of their "treatment" to end.

Work in a hospital sometime and see all the people that sit there and slowly die for 3-6 months thanks to an unlimited supply of medicine that we pay for. Rather than accept what we cannot change, we throw good money after bad and prolong the suffering of the patients by drugging them up and helping them live with machines.

The wealthy can impose such foolishness upon the world because they can pay for it out of their own pockets. Normal people cannot unless the government helps them with my money. They are not poor either- the "poor" is really the bottom 99.999 percent of the world's richest nation- what percentage of that do you think is poor in any conventional sense of the word? We really need to get used to the idea of people who are dying accepting that it is so and dying cheaply rather than ultra-expensively.

pcf
October 20, 2005, 09:46 AM
The funny thing is, if this law passes, the Dems will suddenly have a good majority in Florida and some other states. Giving the vote back to the millions of felons in this country will dramatically change the balance of power. Most felons will probably vote Democratic.


"Reinfranchising" the "disenfrachised" will energize the oppressed throughout the country, apathy will give way to a new found sense of patriotism and civic duty. They will flood the polls and dominate the legislature. Spare me, Please.

Florida 2004, 56.3 of eligible blacks voted, 64.4 percent of eligible voters registered. Apathy is a bigger enemy than the "disenfrachised," if Democrats want to win in Florida they need to get voters off of their lazy asses and to the polls.

Giving felons the right to vote isn't going to swing a single election. If felons do win, screw the loser, they deserve it, if losing was such a concern they would have gotten more people to the polls. Voter turnout rules close elections not the numbers of eligible voters. When voter turnout approaches 95% then get worried about increasing the pool of voters.

A legislature that abbrogates our Constitutional Rights in the name of a greater good is a road paved to hell with wicked intentions.

beerslurpy
October 20, 2005, 09:52 AM
Thats nice. How are things in Maryland? If felons couldnt vote, do you think they would even need polling stations in Baltimore?

Fix your own state before criticizing ours.

Mr.V.
October 21, 2005, 05:58 AM
Giving chemo to someone who can be saved is one thing-

That's not what you're arguing at all! Stick to your guns. You're saying we shouldn't pay for any of it. "Start killing off entitlement programs, starting with the medical ones." That's what you said. All of it. Had you merely said, we shouldn't pay for ineffective medical treatments, that's a different argument altogether. I'd have to agree with that one.

But you're telling me we shouldn't pay for chemotherapy for a child who happens to have poor parents and got stuck with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia, which prior to chemo was universally fatal and now has an 80% survival, because we should kill off government medical programs. Good luck selling that one.

There are many other treatments for diseases that can save a person's life but are expensive. Yeah we'll pay for it with your money that you feel you don't owe to anyone...but maybe the kid whose life it saved will play you a lament on the violin instead of say...dying.

JJpdxpinkpistols
October 21, 2005, 03:57 PM
What is really ment: We give felons back all rights, former felons take advantage of rights. Rehabilitated felon now buys legal firearm. RECIDIVISM, rehabilitated felon commits felony again but now with legal firearm. Brady Bunch says more gun control because lawfully purchased firearm use in felonies sky rocketing. Public brainwashed by left wing nightly news. New laws to protect public from legal firearm owners that are now commiting more felonies than anytime in history.

You can't teach an old dog new trix. I would wager that gun wouldn't be gotten legally.

If someone comes out of the US prison system either re-offend or not reoffend, and they tend to choose the latter. I find the argument that they would mix the two somewhat improbable.

Besides, my gun can be had on the streets for 60-80$, but in the store it was 300$ + a NIC check. Which do you think someone intent on re-offending would go for?

JJ -- who is staying the HECK outta the medical discussion.

bruss01
October 21, 2005, 09:08 PM
So a person convicted of a felony loses their voting and firearms rights FOREVER, and some of you think that's a great idea.

Think for a second why having the right to vote and the right to keep and bear arms are important.

Now see if you can think of anyone who would want there to be fewer people who would be allowed to vote, fewer people who would be allowed to keep and bear arms - and why.

Now think - do those people have any influence on what laws are created? Yes, they are called "politicians", "Elected Officials" and "Powers That Be". They have shown a marked tendency in recent years to make common everyday things a crime. People make mistakes. Mistakes in judgement, even clerical errors, which are not malicious, nor violent, nor destructive, nor larcenous. To simply look into a computer system remotely, without permission - not steal, not pirate, not destroy, but simply to look - is a felony. There is a checkbox on the driver's license form, checking the wrong box is a felony. Forgot your glasses? Hand slipped? Misunderstood the question? Tough luck, buddy boy, you just earned a stay at the Graybar Hotel.

Ayn Rand was right - Government has no power over honest men, only criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, you make some. How long before chewing gum in a restricted zone, or spitting on the sidewalk, or keeping out overdue library books - How long before these things become felonies? Only until we have a shortage of criminals. Only until the PTB's decide that too many of us are voting and keeping firearms.

Then we'll decide to vote to change things, but oops! We have that old felony on our records for forgetting to put the toilet seat down in a federal building - sorry charlie, you can't vote anymore. So then enough of us will get angry and try to revolt against the oppressive tyranical government, but oops! We don't have guns anymore because of that old felony on our records for changing a flat in a no-tire-changing zone. So we think we'll just borrow a gun from our buddies, but oops! Seems like they all have felonies on their records too. Who would have thought that all of your friends would have turned out to be dangerous felons?

And of course, all the sheeple will be pleased as punch that you dangerous felons can't vote and God forbid one of you ever gets ahold of a gun.

Is that what it will take for us to realize where this is headed? WAKE UP! :cuss:

thorn726
October 21, 2005, 09:59 PM
How long before these things become felonies? Only until we have a shortage of criminals. Only until the PTB's decide that too many of us are voting and keeping firearms.

too true

that is exactly how it works

Hawkmoon
October 21, 2005, 11:49 PM
I understand the principle you are expressing, but you are seriously naive if you think this is some money test for voting like a poll tax. This is about removing the worst of the welfare rats from the political scene. These people are not only on the dole but committing serious crimes as well. If, even after the NOLA disaster, you cannot see why this is a good safeguard to have, then there is really no point in explaining it to you.
And I understand your point, but the expressed intention of incarceration is that when an individual has completed his sentence (and probation, if applicable), he/she has "paid his debt to society" and is a free man.

How can a man who cannot vote and who is deprived of a right GUARANTEED by the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of most states be considered a "free" man?

I have always believed that ex-felons should have their right to vote and their right to possess firearms restored. If we don't trust them to have a gun, why are we letting them out of jail?

DarkThought
October 22, 2005, 12:58 AM
I'd be in favor of a _process_ that can ultimately lead to restoration of full citizenship rights, so that the motivated and truly reformed could get back into the game, but I'd not hand it out automatically at the jailhouse gate.

Say, X years of good behavior, or a grand jury panel that felons could appeal to every so often.

Alternately, we could make a finding of a jury necessary for stripping of citizen's rights as a separate phase of conviction.


Good plan. I agree with this.

And I further postulate that if we started to really take the initiative in shaping the debate over restoration of rights after a sentence is served, WE COULD TIE IN THE IDEA OF GUN RIGHTS RIGHT ALONG WITH VOTING RIGHTS.

After all, if leftists want so badly for felons to vote, why should they have a problem with them having guns too? Oh, it's okay for them to have a hand in deciding the future of the nation politically, but they can't have a gun to defend their family? :rolleyes:

So maybe the enthusiasm that the left has for dragging criminal scum into the election process could be cooled a bit if we said, "Sure, they can have ALL of their civil and Constitutional rights back automatically when they're sprung. (I don't know about you, but I don't palpitate at the idea of criminals getting to pick the softest-on-crime candidate when elections come around.) Give them SO MUCH of what they're asking for that they don't want it anymore.

Why are gun rights consistently being left out of the national discussion of felons' rights?! We need to GET them in there. It's a form of reverse psychology. We show the left just what it would mean to give them what they want, and they will run screaming the other way! :D


-DarkThought

DarkThought
October 22, 2005, 01:00 AM
And I understand your point, but the expressed intention of incarceration is that when an individual has completed his sentence (and probation, if applicable), he/she has "paid his debt to society" and is a free man.

How can a man who cannot vote and who is deprived of a right GUARANTEED by the U.S. Constitution and the constitutions of most states be considered a "free" man?

I have always believed that ex-felons should have their right to vote and their right to possess firearms restored. If we don't trust them to have a gun, why are we letting them out of jail?

This is exactly how I feel.

But I use this stance to argue not for the restoration of felons' rights to vote and have guns, but to KEEP THEM IN JAIL FOR FAR LONGER THAN WE CURRENTLY DO.

The idea is, IF we let them out, they'll have every right we have; and since we don't want violent people to be legally allowed to have guns again, WE WOULD MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO KEEP THEM LOCKED UP.

-DarkThought

solareclipse
October 22, 2005, 01:36 AM
i've no problem with them getting their rights back in say 10 years unless they screw up before then again.

so, sentence of 5 years, rights restored 10 years after sentence served assuming they are obeying the law this time.

it is only fair. why? you only live once.

If you enjoyed reading about "Jack Kemp says give rights back to felons.." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!