Do you think a person convicted of a felony should be allowed to own a firearm?
- Thread starter SolaScriptura139
- Start date
- Status
MudPuppy
Member
Only one that should really matter. 
TallPine
Member
I suppose all of those must have a "sporting purpose"
Though I never before thought about all those foreign made electric drills with pistol grips
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Don't Tread On Me
That is a nice opinion, but our laws stipulate loss of certain rights with the commission of felonies. It is one of the rammifications for those people who are willing to risk their rights in committing felonies.
So if you think rights should be returned after completion of the entire sentence, does that me people who get early parole won't get back their rights as they did not serve their entire sentence?
I do like the stipulation of payback. Unfortunately, you negledted a significant payback that isn't being made and it is often the greatest expense, the cost of prison. At some $30-$50K per year per prisoner (figures given in an episode of 60 minutes a few years ago that amazed me because it was costing twice as much to keep a prisoner as I was making in a year), I figure they need to pay back that money as well.
MICHAEL T said,
Twycross said,
I love it when you guys toss out the infringement argument. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't I understand? Apparently, y'all are saying that "shall not be infringed" is an absolute.
Of course they would not have included the passage on "ex-felons." They aren't ex-felons, but ex-convicts.
The thing is, rights can be limited. Loss of the right to vote is in the 14th amendment, for example.
Often when quoted, as here, folks conveniently leave out the part about being in a well regulated militia. Are you in a militia? The Constititution does not define it.
Now if y'all want to play that absolutist garbage game about how the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and whine how it is a Constitional right, try broadening your reading to the Fifth Amendment. I know, I know, after the freedom of speech and keeping and bearing arms, could there be anything useful in the later amendments? Sure.
Oh look, there in the bold faced print. In our Bill of Rights, 5th Amendment, it says we cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. What does that mean? You darned sure can lose rights via due process of the law and there is nothing stated there that says you get to have them back after serving time. There is your Constitutional basis for the second class citizen.
So Twycross, the Second Amendment may not include your quote about "with the exception of ex-felons." However, rights loss is covered in the 5th. Funny thing, later amendments can change the preceding Consititution or preceding Amendments. You see, amendments are things added on and come later, thereby adding, deleting, or otherwise modifying preceding portions.
Twycross said,
This is the passive aggressive argument basically saying that we are really don't want to suggest such rights could be lost forever because someday we may end up convicted of a felony as some many of us have purposefull or accidentally committed felonies. The inclusion of the concept of accidental felonies is great. It is there to strike fear into those who don't think felons should have rights such as gun possession returned to them. Given that accidents are uninentional and that accidents can and often do happen, then we good, law-abiding citizens would hate to accidentally commit a felony that resulted in a loss of rights. Accidents, you know, like the cop that had a negligent discharge and killed a suspect and he wasn't charged with negligence/manslaughter. That could happen to any of us where we accidentally shoot and kill somebody, right?
Twycross said,
Untrue. Right losses are specified. There is no specified loss of religious rights for committing a felony. In fact, freedom of religion has been upheld in prisons where the greatest amount of rights loss occurs.
I have participated in and read debates here and in other forums about the keep and bear arms rights and not being infringed. If that right can't be infringed, then why can't prisoners have guns while in prison? Simple, they lose rights as part of being convicted of a felony. Some of y'all think that once the penalty of the felony has passed, that the rights should be restored. Would you be so kind as to tell me what Constitutional Amendment states that full rights will be returned after restitution and time served?
This really has my interest as those of you who claim that civil rights should be restored after restittuion and time served of felons for felonies (some stipulating non-violent crimes), so y'all are saying that you are comfortable with returning the rights to those convicted of treason, not sentenced to death, and eventually got out of prison?
That is a nice opinion, but our laws stipulate loss of certain rights with the commission of felonies. It is one of the rammifications for those people who are willing to risk their rights in committing felonies.
So if you think rights should be returned after completion of the entire sentence, does that me people who get early parole won't get back their rights as they did not serve their entire sentence?
I do like the stipulation of payback. Unfortunately, you negledted a significant payback that isn't being made and it is often the greatest expense, the cost of prison. At some $30-$50K per year per prisoner (figures given in an episode of 60 minutes a few years ago that amazed me because it was costing twice as much to keep a prisoner as I was making in a year), I figure they need to pay back that money as well.
MICHAEL T said,
Twycross said,
I love it when you guys toss out the infringement argument. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't I understand? Apparently, y'all are saying that "shall not be infringed" is an absolute.
Of course they would not have included the passage on "ex-felons." They aren't ex-felons, but ex-convicts.
The thing is, rights can be limited. Loss of the right to vote is in the 14th amendment, for example.
Often when quoted, as here, folks conveniently leave out the part about being in a well regulated militia. Are you in a militia? The Constititution does not define it.
Now if y'all want to play that absolutist garbage game about how the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and whine how it is a Constitional right, try broadening your reading to the Fifth Amendment. I know, I know, after the freedom of speech and keeping and bearing arms, could there be anything useful in the later amendments? Sure.
Oh look, there in the bold faced print. In our Bill of Rights, 5th Amendment, it says we cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. What does that mean? You darned sure can lose rights via due process of the law and there is nothing stated there that says you get to have them back after serving time. There is your Constitutional basis for the second class citizen.
So Twycross, the Second Amendment may not include your quote about "with the exception of ex-felons." However, rights loss is covered in the 5th. Funny thing, later amendments can change the preceding Consititution or preceding Amendments. You see, amendments are things added on and come later, thereby adding, deleting, or otherwise modifying preceding portions.
Twycross said,
This is the passive aggressive argument basically saying that we are really don't want to suggest such rights could be lost forever because someday we may end up convicted of a felony as some many of us have purposefull or accidentally committed felonies. The inclusion of the concept of accidental felonies is great. It is there to strike fear into those who don't think felons should have rights such as gun possession returned to them. Given that accidents are uninentional and that accidents can and often do happen, then we good, law-abiding citizens would hate to accidentally commit a felony that resulted in a loss of rights. Accidents, you know, like the cop that had a negligent discharge and killed a suspect and he wasn't charged with negligence/manslaughter. That could happen to any of us where we accidentally shoot and kill somebody, right?
Twycross said,
Untrue. Right losses are specified. There is no specified loss of religious rights for committing a felony. In fact, freedom of religion has been upheld in prisons where the greatest amount of rights loss occurs.
I have participated in and read debates here and in other forums about the keep and bear arms rights and not being infringed. If that right can't be infringed, then why can't prisoners have guns while in prison? Simple, they lose rights as part of being convicted of a felony. Some of y'all think that once the penalty of the felony has passed, that the rights should be restored. Would you be so kind as to tell me what Constitutional Amendment states that full rights will be returned after restitution and time served?
This really has my interest as those of you who claim that civil rights should be restored after restittuion and time served of felons for felonies (some stipulating non-violent crimes), so y'all are saying that you are comfortable with returning the rights to those convicted of treason, not sentenced to death, and eventually got out of prison?
- Status
