Gary,
Do you believe this because they should continue to be punished, or because you believe that not being able to legally purchase a gun would prevent violent crime?
Should ALL Felons Regain Their Gun Rights Upon Completion of Sentence/Parole?
- Thread starter Red Wind
- Start date
- Status
Do you believe this because they should continue to be punished, or because you believe that not being able to legally purchase a gun would prevent violent crime?
Good Ol' Boy
Member
That may be true.
However on the flip side, I wonder how many who voted YES have either themselves, or had family/friends that have had more than one brush with the law and simply take offense?
I wonder if you are projecting when you say that.
Not very productive to randomly imply people who disagree with you are criminals, eh?
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
No, it's not "whatever dude." If that's your attitude, then you lack the maturity to have an opinion on what should happen to other people, especially something this serious.
My "opinions" are based on facts and logic. Saying Picasso was Spain's greatest artist is an opinion. Saying that preventing ex cons from owning guns is counterproductive, now that's a fact.
You response is also full of fallacies. For example, I never said that letting ex cons have guns would make them go on the straight and narrow. I said that prohibiting them from owning guns accomplished nothing in terms of public safety, and that treating them as half citizens after their debt has presumably been paid is going to make it difficult for them to leave a life of crime. Again, it's Pavlov's dog. If you treat them like a criminal for the rest of their lives, then they're likely to be a criminal for the rest of their lives.
OP
OP
Red Wind
Member
Nevermind. Answered by Warp.
Good Ol' Boy
Member
If you read my first posts on page one you'd know I'm not projecting.
I wasn't implying anything, more "wondering if".
I don't think implying that folks that don't agree with you are cold hearted is very productive either, eh?
Last edited:
OP
OP
Red Wind
Member
If I thought that what I wrote was not productive, it never would have been written. 
Good Ol' Boy
Member
Well of course.If I thought that what I wrote was not productive, it never would have been written.
However in both our cases there are others who feel different.
OP
OP
Red Wind
Member
Sadly true.
greyghost01
Member
Well this is a delicate question, I will say this not all felons are actually felons, And I know this personally the reason I say this is for 21 yrs I was considered a Felon, For 10 of those years I didn't even know it, I was finger printed and waited 15 days to buy my 44 mag, No problem, I moved to Illinois and there you must have a foid card to purchase anything, I was told I was a felon and could not have one, I originally was born and lived in Illinois, Moved to other States later, They told me I had been a felon in Ill since 1970, 2 years before I joined the Army and served 3 years, It turns out me and some buddy's were hunting we got on to another Farmers land accidently, He pressed charges and I paid the 25.00 fine, When they entered mine into computer it was listed as aggravated burglary, Long story short after finding this out it took another 11 yrs to get straightened out, Believe I know what its like to have your rights taken away, And how hard it is to get them back, Since I have met several other people who this has happened to, Its not right or fair but the government does not care, neither do the police, So yes SOME should get their rights back, NOT all by any means
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,125
No. Violent or non should not be a blanket deciding factor in felonies restoring rights. A friend of my wife is a non violent felon and I would not want her to own a firearm under any circumstance, based on her charge. Restoration of rights should be on a case by case basis, albeit faster than the current system for those truly rehabilitated.
coloradokevin
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 3,285
herrwalther said:
And while I can understand why there are plenty of non-violent felons we wouldn't want to own firearms, there are probably just as many who wouldn't be a problem at all.
Aside from the guy I mentioned earlier, I also used to live in an apartment next to a guy who had picked up a felony charge for marijuana many years ago. He was living a clean life, and worked hard at his job. But, because he smoked some weed when he was young, he was forever barred from firearms ownership. I only ever found out about his charge when I invited him to the range one day, and explained his reason for declining.
While there are plenty of non-violent felons I wouldn't want owning guns, I guess the same can be said for plenty of non-criminals. I know a couple of guys with clean records who are poster children for gun control, just because they are idiots and make bad decisions. But, the line between liberty and security has to be drawn somewhere, and we can't just ban firearms ownership for being stupid. We currently ban it for all felonies, but I think in some cases that goes a bit too far.
Just a point for discussion: why not a ten year ban for non-violent felonies? While many criminals don't clean up their act, I think it would be naive to suggest that people can't turn their lives around... plenty of folks have.
Case by case case basis...starting to sound like May Issue. Up to random people to arbitrary determine if you get to exercise your supposed Rights or not...most assuredly at the taxpayer's expense and not in a timely fashion.
Subjectively letting people pick and choose on a whim who gets Rights and who doesn't is almost universally a negative thing, and we should expect such a system to be abused/corrupt.
larryh1108
Member
So, I guess this means the current way is a better choice because right now that's the way the system works. I'd guess I'd rather have a chance with a corrupt system with people with an agenda than not having the choice at all. Everyone getting their rights back? No. Putting a system in place that allows some to get them back sounds better than no chance at all even if the process is lined with government bureaucracy.
Of course, going 'may issue' reduces if not eliminates the chance of getting an equal-for-everyone system and goes a long way towards making sure the rich, famous, politically corrupted err I mean connected, get it while us regular peasants do not.
larryh1108
Member
There you go, spewing your opinion as fact. It is not a fact. I don't care how many studies that you point to from Norway or Osso Bucco or Antarctica. Those studies are worth the paper they are printed on because we don't know the agenda of the people who paid for them. Are you swayed by any poll from an anti-gun zealot that proves guns are harmful to your health? Why not? It's been proven thru studies!
Like I said twice now. We can agree to disagree. Your opinions are just that, your opinions. They are worth as much as mine. You keep throwing the word "logic" out there like it means that your logic is the only logic. Well, logically speaking, logic is in the eyes of the beholder. If your core values are not the same as mine then the logical answer won't be the same, either.
larryh1108
Member
This is so true on many levels. It is not a fair system when the people of means get breaks that the average Joe does not. If I could change anything in our current justice system, changing this would be near the top of the list. I think the "affluenza" defense used (then abused) in Texas recently is proof of the inequities in our justice system.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,125
Warp said:
Bit of an outstanding leap don't you think? Say Lee Boyd Malvo (part of the DC sniper duo) was released from prison RIGHT NOW. Would you be okay with him owning a firearm when he got out? 5 years from now? 10? I would say never...in his case.
Drug charges? Depends on the case and person, as I said. A different friend of my wife went to prison for drug charges. Got out and got his rights restored. He carries a firearm, legally. He did things right. His only problem was it took way too long, some 15 years.
Using myself as an even more personal example. I was merely charged with a felony. In the months it took for the charge to be dropped, my carry permit was revoked. My right to defense was taken away and there was no conviction at all. Nothing that involves government bureaucracy will ever be quick or fair.
Steel Horse Rider
Member
RX-79G: I find it equally frustrating that people take a position equating all felons as unreasonably convicted. Our justice system is anything but just as it has been built on political positioning and judges have been appointed who have no understanding of the Constitution or the importance of its protections against tyranny. They only know that they owe their continuing career to licking the boots of their masters in the proper fashion so real justice is left in the dust bin. Life is unfair but if you dig into the details you cannot post them here.
Good Ol' Boy
Member
So my "what if" appears to be relevant. Apparently we do have some former felons on here that seem to take offense.
But there are many more who are not former felons on here. To say this is just plain luck would be naive to put it politely.
Whatever decisions you make/made in life are/were yours to make, period. It seems as time goes on society is less focused on CONSEQUENCES for ones actions and instead looking for something else to blame for what one does.
But I digress. I was raised in a time where things were done different, and those practices are long unaccepted by society today.
But there are many more who are not former felons on here. To say this is just plain luck would be naive to put it politely.
Whatever decisions you make/made in life are/were yours to make, period. It seems as time goes on society is less focused on CONSEQUENCES for ones actions and instead looking for something else to blame for what one does.
But I digress. I was raised in a time where things were done different, and those practices are long unaccepted by society today.
Well, I wouldn't have people convicted guilty of multiple first degree murders released.
But if we determined he had "paid his debt to society" and he was going to be out free in public, then yes.
And guess what, if he wanted to get a gun and kill more people, he would do it anyway!
30mag
Member
Yes. I think we need a major overhaul of the "justice" system in this country and this is one of the things that ought to change.
Sent from my LG-VS980 using Tapatalk
Sent from my LG-VS980 using Tapatalk
CoalTrain49
Member
The two people I was referring to are close relatives. One of them is my brother and the other my step brother. My brother has some learning disabilities and my step brother is an alcoholic. I know them both pretty well. I also have a good friend who is an alcoholic. I've seen him do some pretty stupid things while loaded. It's a damn wonder he isn't a felon too.
So for me it has nothing to do with friends or relatives.
Vern Humphrey
Member
That's a logical fallacy -- look at it this way:
Situation 1. Your child is brutally tortured and murdered.
Situation 2. Your child is accused of brutally torturing and murdering someone else's child.
Would you not have a different position in Situation 1 than in Situation 2?
But the law has to be the same for everyone -- or else there is no law, only passion.
Corpral_Agarn
Member
This is pretty much where I am at, too.
- Status
