So why shouldn't criminals be allowed to have guns?

[TechBrute]

Our "Justice" system is based on rehabilitation. If someone commits a crime, they get convicted, they do their time, and they are "rehabilitated." So now they are returned to society with no right to defend their home, family, and self against people that haven't been "rehabilitated" yet.

Society is a series of laws. These laws govern who becomes a criminal and who doesn't. Based on these arbitrary writings, a 19 year old kid who steals an X-box forfeits, for the rest of his life, certain rights to defend himself and his future family. In the state of Texas, certain misdemeanors forfeit your right to carry concealed. I don't know what types of crimes class A and B misdemenors are, but they are bad enough to forfeit some of your rights to personal defense and self preservation.

On the other hand, our society plea-bargains and releases criminals so quickly, I'm not sure I'd want a convicted murderer legally carrying a gat in line behind me at the McD's. Of course, the law doesn't neccesarily affect him, anyway. He'd likely carry wether it was legal or not. Only a law-abiding "ex-criminal" would abide by the law, and then what good is the law?

Why do we criminalize carrying the gun? Why not simply criminalize only the actions that the person with the gun does?

I'm in the process of forming an opinion on this, and I'd like to hear others' views on this. I've written this is sort of a devil's advocate approach, but I'm not sure I believe one way or the other.

 

[PBIR]

I believe that if a criminal can exhibit that they are reformed their rights should be restored without reservation once a certain amount of years has passed following their release.

I look at it this way: If a criminal can never be anything but a second-class citizen no matter what they do, what reason do they have to fly the straight and narrow once they are released? Why not go back to illegal activities if you can never have a good job or legally protect yourself and your family?

 

[Archie]

Because of our laws.....

that is the way the laws are written.

Part of the idea is that those persons who have demonstrated their unwillingness to be a productive part of society (i.e., those who have committed felony crimes) are stripped of their citizenship. They cannot vote or hold public office, they may not serve in the Armed Forces (believe it or not, that was once thought an honor) and they may not own weapons.
Which, by the way, really shoots another hole in the "2nd Amendment supports the National Guard" argument.

Part of the idea is that those who have shown a predisposition to violence should be penalized the ability to commit violence. I don't think a 'thrill killer' should have a gun. Of course, I don't think a 'thrill killer' should be loose to walk the streets, either, but what the heck...

The problem is that Congress has invented a number of felonies.

Personally, I don't think a 16 year old kid who commits a single offense of 'joyriding' (sort of car theft, light) should be stripped of all his civil rights for the rest of his life. I do think he should be made to understand that other person's rights, including that of being safe in their possessions, is very important.

Martha Stewart is going into the slammer for 5 months for telling lies. I'm not really sure she should be stripped of her civil rights for that. But she needs to have the importance of morals and truthfullness emphasized.

I seem to recall that Cole Younger (of the James-Younger crime families) became a preacher in his later years. By all accounts, he was a different man than when he rode with Frank and Jesse and the others.

I'm not a real bleeding heart liberal, but I think every individual should be dealt with as an individual. And I think all individuals should be accountable for their actions.

Owning a personal weapon is a civil right. I think as a nation, we should be very liberal in the usage and promotion of civil rights.

 

[Hypnogator]

Because the only reliabile predictor of behavior is past behavior.

Those lacking the moral wherewithal to follow the law are the most likely to offend again in the future.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Because there has to be some sanction on criminal behavior, not only to provide a deterrent before the fact, but to restrict after the fact. Look, if a wild animal (bear, cougar) or even a domestic dog begins to attack people, there is a good possibility it will continue to attack people. (When you say criminal, I assume you mean violent felon.

 

[PBIR]

When you say criminal, I assume you mean violent felon

No offense, but given the sheer number of non-violent felonies in America that seems like a huge assumption.

 

[TechBrute]

When you say criminal, I assume you mean violent felon.

Absolutely not. There are plenty of non-violent crimes that forfeit your rights. Should Kenneth Lay be denied the right to protect his family from an intruder? Should G. Gordon Liddy be denied the right to protect himself from a mugger? How about the Navy guy in NY that shot the guy standing over his daughter's crib and then was convicted of a felony?

 

[R.H. Lee]

No offense, but given the sheer number of non-violent felonies in America that seems like a huge assumption

I had murder, rape, assault, strongarm robbery, etc. in mind. OTOH, there are waaayyyy too many people in prison for simple "drug possession".

 

[Standing Wolf]

We seem to have two classes of crimes: felonies and misdemeanors, the latter of which is sometimes divided into regular and gross misdemeanors.

Clearly, there are more than two and a half or three kinds of crime, as well as a great many kinds of criminals.

 

[R.H. Lee]

There are plenty of non-violent crimes that forfeit your rights. Should Kenneth Lay be denied the right to protect his family from an intruder? Should G. Gordon Liddy be denied the right to protect himself from a mugger? How about the Navy guy in NY that shot the guy standing over his daughter's crib and then was convicted of a felony?

Good questions, but moot to society at large who mostly do not recognize the validity of proactive self defense. The overwhelming view is "Call 911, that's what the police are for." So to make a case for felons to possess firearms, you must first make a case that citizens have the right of self defense.

 

[TimRB]

"If a criminal can never be anything but a second-class citizen no matter what they do, what reason do they have to fly the straight and narrow once they are released?"

The reason is that if he deviates from the straight and narrow, we'll throw him in prison again, and probably longer this time. Felons don't give up their right to self defense, not even in prison. They just lose the right to defend themselves with firearms. I have no problem with that.

Tim

 

[Finch]

In my opinion, it comes down to what kind fo crime. I hear that is some states it's a felony if you drive 10 mph over the speed limit. This person should not be barred from owning a firearm. But if a man decides to beat his wife, then yeah, I think they should not be allowed to own a firearm. Especially if the prior crime involved a firearm. Ahh but what do I know, I'm just a kid.

 

[Warren]

Martha Stewart is going into the slammer for 5 months for telling lies. I'm not really sure she should be stripped of her civil rights for that. But she needs to have the importance of morals and truthfullness emphasized.

By a government that routinely lies? She did nothing morally or ethically wrong. She is a bad example to use.

 

[whm1974]

In my opinion, it comes down to what kind fo crime. I hear that is some states it's a felony if you drive 10 mph over the speed limit

Then every driver in that state is a unconveted felon.

-Bill

 

[Warren]

I want no controls on firearms sales at all so if that means felons of whatever srtipe get their hands on them, that is fine. We, the good people, out number them and are smarter then they are.


With equal access to weapons we, the civilized, will win out over the scum.


I want to be able to walk in to a store, not present any ID, not have a back ground check, not pass a test, not have a limit on what I buy, not have to take a class, slam down some cash and walk out with anything from a .22 to a .44 to a Sten Gun, to an MG42, to an M-79 GL, to a 60mm surplus Chinese mortar, to an RPG 7, to a case of grenades to a FA BMG, to a Gyrojet etc...with out anyone saying anything other than "Thank You! Come Again!"

That is a free country.

So dump all of this gun control crap. Every last freaking bit of it.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

If a criminal has "paid his debt to society" and has been deemed safe to release back into society, he should have his rights restored automatically. Otherwise, he should not be released from the justice system. All free people have all of the rights listed in the Constitution. There is nothing in there that allows the government to pick and choose which rights are granted to which category of citizen and which ones are denied.

 

[Tharg]

Still don't think Martha lied - think she did anything anyone on this board might do - heard a friend tell her something and went with it.

If yer buddy told ya that there was "X" (something you wanted) that was marked down WAYY low (prolly a mistake) and he bought one and you should go buy one too... would ya? Prolly - cause life is about being in the right place at the right time. Course - i'm no lawyer - and i wasn't there - so i can't say EXACTLY what happened - but that sounds like it about sums it up - friend said HEY - make some cash doing X... it didn't sound illegal and she did it. (if we are asking - OJ did it and Kobe was a victim, don't know about Peterson... rofl)

I know a person i used to date. Talked w/ her often and she was dating this guy that by all means - sounds like he was framed. He was an LEO. He owned/ran a gun range... Got charged w/ a felony - and now can't own/handle a firearm (even tho he train's other LEO's) He LOVES shooting... he even looked into moving other places. Australia was (heh- was) high on the list... in order to keep w/ what was essentially his life.

Far as i know - appeals and the like were for naught... and honestly don't KNOW that he was innocent... just from listening to the stories - sounds like it was a raw deal. All this and a bag o' chips was not a violent "crime" - more to do w/ paperwork. Yet his lively hood was basically rendered null

Like one poster said above - past history is/should be sufficient for a number of years. I got my first and only DWI late 1999 - trial was jan 2000... i will finally be getting to the point where i can get my CHL in Texas, even tho i took the class and stuff in 2000... i didn't realize that i was in-elligible because of the DWI. 5 years... i guess i can go ahead and get it in 2005. Should be some limiter that if you've not commited any crimes that you are eligible again to "rejoin" the rest of society since you've proven a history of living WITH society, just like you proved you weren't with society before....

J/Tharg!

 

[Destructo6]

Isn't it a "Penal System", as in punishment, not necessarily reform?

She did nothing morally or ethically wrong. She is a bad example to use.

She did lie to investigators and attempted to cover up details that both parties thought could be criminal.

Anyway, in my opinion, a felon should have all of his/her rights restored once their full sentance is served. By that, I mean that if the sentance is 20 years, then exactly 20 years from the date of sentancing, even if the felon was released much earlier. To me, that would be, "Debt paid in full."

Of course, I'd also favor reason being applied to sentancing. We can all dream.

 

[roo_ster]

Felons ought to have nearly all their liberties stripped from them:
carry a firearm
vote
etc
...until the point they have served out whatever punshment meted out by their peers & fellow citizens. Then they get 'em back. All of 'em.

If Joe T. Felon is still a danger or has not been punished enough, why the heck is he out among society? If the answer is, "We did not have enough room in the pokey so Joe served only 1/2 his sentence," then Joe regains full rights of citizenship when he is off parole.

If someone is such a danger or has committed a crime so heinous that he can never be trusted with the full measure of citizenship as a free man, he ought to have been executed or been give life in prison, no parole.

**********

My thoughts on "rehabilitation" are fairly jaded. I think imprisonment has several purposes (in order of importance):
1. Separate offender from society to protect society from him (el numero uno, all else is nice to have, but not the main reason)
2. Punish offender, sending the message that society will not allow such behavior an that there are consequnces for such behavior
3. Rehabilitation
4. Any other purpose

************

Felonies aren't what they used to be.

The law has run riot over so much of our society, I think of Law as a horde of barbarian invaders, looting and raping our liberty and ability to do as we please as long as we are not violent toward others. There are so many laws on the books and so many felonies created, that I and many others are losing respect for Law.

Martha Stewart is a terrific example. She is going to prison not for a real crime, but for having the gaul to have a different story from the perjuring federales. It really ought not to be a crime to tell the federales to pound sand.

The outlawing of new ways to pollute one's body are also a fine example of the hilarity that ensues when way too much is declared a felony. I was born in 1971 and recall the whole ramping up of the drug war. How can an honest person live through that mess and not come away shaking their head at the sheer a$$hattery and mendacity of it all?

"In the beginning there was wacky tobacky, heroin, and cocaine, and heroin was the worst of them all..."

Except...
Crack came along, which was "worse than heroin"
(You could become addicted in something like.35 seconds or even if you got too close to something you thought MIGHT be crack.)

Then...
Meth began to be cooked up, and it was "worse than crack"
(Damn skippy its worse! 'Cause, well, uh, they don't have to smuggle it into the 'states and they can buy a whole lot of the ingredients at Wal-mart.)

But...
Heroin came back, and it was "worse than meth" ...which makes "heroin worse than heroin"
(Hey! Are you makin' fun of me! You can't apply logic and the mathematical properties to the war on [some] drugs!)

 

[Tharg]

I love the drug war...

heh

if someone wants to blow thier mind away - thats thier right - so long (in my eyes) that it does not effect someone else. If yer "robbing someone to get crack money" - then all yer doing is robbing someone... which has a law already....

War on drugs is just an excuse... its the <cough> "law abiding way" to get the govt's hands in the drug money - and profit - ... i mean its like insider trading - we make it illegal - the price skyrockets - we bust the perpetrators - rake in the cash....

rofl

J/Tharg!

 

[Majic]

First your line of thinking is dated by about 40 years. At one time the person tried for a crime was judged on his/her actions. Then the smart lawyers started to look for ways to get sympathy from the juries. One easy way is to look in someone's past. Everyone has had some type of traumatic experience at one time in their life. A whole new field then opened up that could then point to these experiences and show the person somehow no longer had control over their lives. Since the person on trial could no longer be held totally accountable then the emphasis shifted to the tool the person used in the crime. The concept of removing the tool meant the person couldn't commit the crime. Human nature has been all but totally set aside because something has somehow deviated this person from life's path without any thought that the deviate is in fact the person, not some distant event.

 

[Tharg]

Don't know how this works....

A person commits a crime. Never had my gun jump from the locker and rush out and rob a store... ever.....

guess we are back to the basic gullibility of people (jurors) again =(

<sigh>

 

[Wildalaska]

Because the only reliabile predictor of behavior is past behavior.

You win the reason prize

On the other hand Compare above with:

I want no controls on firearms sales at all so if that means felons of whatever srtipe get their hands on them, that is fine. We, the good people, out number them and are smarter then they are.

and

With equal access to weapons we, the civilized, will win out over the scum.

and you will understand why many normal non gunowning, American, or even some gun owning americans, think guns owner or fellow fgun owners arte unbalanced.

WildgimmereasonoveremotionanytimeAlaska

 

[Warren]

Well, if they or you do not understand or appreciate what freedom is that is your problem.

 

[Wildalaska]

Well, if they or you do not understand or appreciate what freedom is that is your problem.

O well thats a rational answer Sure as heck convinced me, and I got a machine gun under the bed tonight....

Wilddoyou?Alaska