1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Should violent felons be allowed firearms?

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Glockfan.45, Dec 18, 2006.


Should violent ex-cons be allowed firearms?

Poll closed Dec 23, 2006.
  1. Yes it doesnt matter what you did it is a right we all deserve

    59 vote(s)
  2. No if you murder, rape, or rob you gave up your rights.

    332 vote(s)
  3. Not sure

    16 vote(s)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Glockfan.45

    Glockfan.45 member

    This poll is in responce to a debate taking place on another thread. Do you think violent ex-cons such as muderers, rapist, and armed robbers should be allowed to legally own firearms upon their release? Yes I know they can get them if they want them bad enough, but should it be legal? Tell me what you think, I will not be responding on this thread.
  2. The-Fly

    The-Fly Well-Known Member

    Violent felons lose all their rights in my opinion. Personally murders and rapists all deserve the death penalty, let alone being released from prison ever.
  3. jerkface11

    jerkface11 Well-Known Member

    If they can't be trusted with their rights they shouldn't be out of prison.

    PILMAN Well-Known Member

    I'm against violent felons owning firearms or voting, they waived those rights when they commited a crime. Now as for certain cases of a Felony, some Felonys are just rediculous but if it's violent and an intention to murder rather than self defense then I understand completely why they shouldn't be able to own a firearm.
  5. No, but there is no law that is going to stop them, just depends on how badly they want firearms.
  6. MaterDei

    MaterDei Well-Known Member

    The key word for me is 'violent'. When Jeff Skilling gets out of the joint I don't see why he should not be able to own firearms.
  7. Larryect

    Larryect Well-Known Member

    This should be limited to VIOLENT felons. They have already shown they do not have the ability to act responsibly. However some of the things considered as felonies are outrageous.
  8. Declaration Day

    Declaration Day Well-Known Member

    I believe that if you are free, you should have all of your rights.

    I also believe that violent felons should not be let out of prison.
  9. romma

    romma Well-Known Member

    I voted no. Lock them up if they can't be trusted. If we release them, then why not?
  10. possum

    possum Well-Known Member

    not only should they not be allowed to own firearms they should be shot with someones gun that is allowed to own guns. i have no remorse for felons especially those who rape, or commite crimes against children. period end o post!:)
  11. Cousin Mike

    Cousin Mike Well-Known Member

    I believe that if we trust you enough to release you from prison, and let you back into society, then you deserve to be able to exercise all of your rights. That said, I don't think we should let people who commit crimes of a certain nature out of prison.
  12. javacodeman

    javacodeman Well-Known Member

    I agree, but this isn't the case.


    On the same page here too.

  13. 230RN

    230RN Marines on Mt. Curibacci

    {BP 190/110}

    My long-standing opinion is that excepting violent crimes, once you've paid your debt to society, your full rights should be restored.

    My qualification regarding "violence" is in response to the fact that what is defined as a "felony" has been widened to include all kinds of things including bad check writing. (My understanding is that writing three bad checks in CA can theoretically win you a mandatory life sentence.)

    The same can be said of sex offenses. It is not impossible to be tagged with a sex offender label if you are caught peeing in an alley. (Some of us might have dime-sized bladders.) And to have a sex offender registry, to me, violates the concept of "punishment to fit the crime," and the "cruel and unusual" punishment provisions. That's just the way I see it. Sort of like branding an "A" on the forehead of an adulteress.

    I hate to sound tin-hatty about it, but I could almost see the growing number of non-violent crimes which are included as felonies as a ploy of the anti-gunners to force more and more folks into the category of people who are disqualified from possessing a firearm. Almost. (Yes I know a lot of things which have been defined as felonies, like bad check-writing, are driven by business interests.)

    It makes you wonder if at some point in the future spitting on the sidewalk can result in a felony conviction.

    I also see much of this trend as a result of lawmakers' attempts to "do something" about crime such that they can be re-elected.

    So, the answer to your direct question is "NO," but the question should be widened to "Should nonviolent crimes even be felonies?"

    {BP 130/80}

    Afterthought: Somebody on one of the gun forums wisecracked about how much safer he felt now that Martha Stewart could no longer possess firearms. Pithy, what?
    Last edited: Dec 18, 2006
  14. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Well-Known Member

    Violent felons? Lots of limitations are all right.

    Other "felons"? We need another class of crime, I think. There are too many "felonies" that don't warrant stripping someone of his/her basic rights. We need a class of crime that's not a misdemeanor, but also differentiates someone convicted of this class of crime from someone that the average person would consider a "felon."
  15. Cousin Mike

    Cousin Mike Well-Known Member

    Murder is the stickler for me... The vast majority of people in prison for murder aren't homicidal maniacs. I think the nature of the crime makes a big difference on whether or not that person should ever be released.

    I also think anyone who messed with a kid, or rapes a woman should be turned over to the victims family for whatever punishment the family sees fit.
  16. thegriz

    thegriz Well-Known Member

    The real question here is do you agree with YOUR rights being limited because of violent felons? Should it be a huge pain to obtain a full auto, etc. for everybody because is supposedly makes it harder for felons?
  17. JesseL

    JesseL Well-Known Member

    If you're good enough to be trusted to be out in public, you're good enough to be trusted with a gun. We don't need multiple classes of 'free' citizens.
  18. ServiceSoon

    ServiceSoon Well-Known Member

    Its common sense to me. You wouldn't give a vial of arsenic to a baby and you shouldn't give guns to violent felons. :neener:
  19. MrTuffPaws

    MrTuffPaws Well-Known Member

    I am of the school of thought that if you commit a crime, you serve your time and then you go back into society with all of the rights you had before.

    It is more of an issue of the penalties for crimes not fitting. If you are a horrid person that can't be trusted not to harm another, then you should not be let out of prison once you go in.
  20. MrDig

    MrDig Well-Known Member

    Reasonable Exceptions apply

    I personally know someone who commited a felony (Armed Robbery) over 30 years ago. Off paper for over 16, This person has in fact become a model citizen. Sober 26 yrs been involved and participated in programs to intervene with kids and drugs and crime. And yet still can't vote or own even a hunting gun. At what point do we consider a persons debt to society paid in full? I don't think a person just released from prison on any felony conviction should automagically have all civil rights reinstated. I do believe after demonstrating you don't participate in Felonious behavior and are a fuctional productive participant in society, Rights like voting and firearms ownership should and can be reinstated.
    A white collar felon is still a felon and commited a crime. I don't think that speaks to a lesser "degree" of criminal behavior.
    The reason I don't commit felonies is that I want to keep my rights as a citizen intact.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page