zxcvbob
Member
How did our country even survive its first 200 years, before the Gun Control Act of 1968?
Do you think maybe ex-cons with guns might be a problem invented by the government?
Should ALL Felons Regain Their Gun Rights Upon Completion of Sentence/Parole?
- Thread starter Red Wind
- Start date
- Status
How did our country even survive its first 200 years, before the Gun Control Act of 1968?
Do you think maybe ex-cons with guns might be a problem invented by the government?deadin
Member
We weren't nearly as crowded and they used to execute a higher percentage of the violent than they do now.... (He needed killin')
MachIVshooter
Member
I had to go with non-violent because the options are too limited.
On principle, yes, I think people who have served their time should have rights restored. The problem is, many of the sentences for violent crimes are a joke, and very few offenders serve out their time. And then there is the recidivism rate issue.
Ideally, people who have proved they cannot be trusted with weapons should not be free to roam in society where they will inevitably obtain them. Along those lines, no free man should be barred the use of arms.
However, in the real world, we end up with pitiful sentences on lesser charges for some pretty violent offenders, and then let them out even earlier, just to end up prosecuting them again and again for similar crimes. People who have killed in cold blood serving less than a decade is unacceptable by any standard, but it happens all the time. Until we fix this situation and keep those types locked up, the constitutional paradigm of free men and their rights simply cannot be.
On principle, yes, I think people who have served their time should have rights restored. The problem is, many of the sentences for violent crimes are a joke, and very few offenders serve out their time. And then there is the recidivism rate issue.
Ideally, people who have proved they cannot be trusted with weapons should not be free to roam in society where they will inevitably obtain them. Along those lines, no free man should be barred the use of arms.
However, in the real world, we end up with pitiful sentences on lesser charges for some pretty violent offenders, and then let them out even earlier, just to end up prosecuting them again and again for similar crimes. People who have killed in cold blood serving less than a decade is unacceptable by any standard, but it happens all the time. Until we fix this situation and keep those types locked up, the constitutional paradigm of free men and their rights simply cannot be.
Elkins45
Member
Should people convicted of lying (swindlers, con artists, political malfeasance) get their free speech rights back?
I voted non-violent only. The violent have proven they can't be trusted with weapons. Many felonies have nothing to do with someone's propensity to physically harm others.
I voted non-violent only. The violent have proven they can't be trusted with weapons. Many felonies have nothing to do with someone's propensity to physically harm others.
Last edited:
If you can be convicted of lying, did you actually have free speech in the first place?
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
MachIVshooter remarked,
Pretty much agree there... in principle. I suspect, but cannot prove, that the early release problem is a result of too many laws, resulting in overcrowding and high expenses.
<ramble>
We put folks in office as "lawmakers" and --imagine that! --they make laws. I also suspect but cannot prove, that in order to be re-elected, they have to show that they made more laws.
Root-cause solutions? Two-term maximum for lawmakers. They have to pay their own money to be in office. Have to campaign on what laws they intend to try to repeal. Law degree an automatic disqualification.
</ramble>
<comment> <excuse for bad behavior>
My arthritis is bothering me today. Snarl. 
:banghead:
</comment> </excuse for bad behavior>
Terry
Pretty much agree there... in principle. I suspect, but cannot prove, that the early release problem is a result of too many laws, resulting in overcrowding and high expenses.
<ramble>
We put folks in office as "lawmakers" and --imagine that! --they make laws. I also suspect but cannot prove, that in order to be re-elected, they have to show that they made more laws.
Root-cause solutions? Two-term maximum for lawmakers. They have to pay their own money to be in office. Have to campaign on what laws they intend to try to repeal. Law degree an automatic disqualification.
</ramble>
<comment> <excuse for bad behavior>
My arthritis is bothering me today. Snarl.
:banghead:</comment> </excuse for bad behavior>
Terry
Last edited:
browningguy
Member
Not in my opinion. As far as I'm concerned a convicted felon has proved beyond a reasonable doubt they can't be trusted to abide by societies rules. It follows that they can't expect to enjoy the rights of that society.
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
Everyone who serves their time should get their guns back. But with that said, our justice system lets people go who shouldn't even be allowed to live, much less ever get out of prison. Rapists, violent thieves, etc. You rape someone, you can never be trusted again. You murder someone, you can never be trusted again. You rob someone at gun point, you can never be trusted again.
BUT, if we decide that someone can be trusted to live out on their own, then they can certainly be trusted with a gun. Besides, they're going to get one anyway if they want one, and there's nothing we can do to stop them. Non violent thieves, drug dealers, tax evaders, etc. should all get their guns back upon completing their sentences.
BUT, if we decide that someone can be trusted to live out on their own, then they can certainly be trusted with a gun. Besides, they're going to get one anyway if they want one, and there's nothing we can do to stop them. Non violent thieves, drug dealers, tax evaders, etc. should all get their guns back upon completing their sentences.
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
So you don't think G Gordon Liddy should ever get his guns back?
entropy
Member
Yes, some of us have studied Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau, as well as Descartes. Read my sig line. There were far, far fewer laws back then. And they were strictly observed, and strictly punished when not. By the logic of your statement,
, a minor traffic conviction would land one in prison or exiled. Better stay under the speed limit.
Sure, if the criminal justice system were reset so there were few laws that covered functioning in society, they were well known, as were the punishments, I'd agree with you. But I'll bet just sitting here, somehow, I'm unknowingly committing some crime. There are way too many laws, regulations and statutes in modern society for everyone to know them all. How about unknowningly breaking the law, then? We all know the judge's answer to that one.
Social Contract Theory works great when all subscribe to it. But as we all know, there are levels of morality below that (as well as above it) that laws and their punishments are in place to deal with. (Remember Kohlberg's six levels of morality? The Heinz Dilemma?) Does a man's motive for committing a crime matter? (Midwest's moonshiner example, ValJean stealing bread in Les Miserables?)
Social contract has it's faults. It's kind of like a constitutional republic; The worst form of morality, except for all others.
G Gordon Liddy would have been executed for treason in a society that took election tampering seriously. Why is he the poster boy for reform?
I think this subject just kind of underlines what a bizarre and ridiculous idea incarceration really is. We think it is so normal to make a criminal "pay" for his crimes by preventing them from being productive at a large expense to the state.
Aliens would think we had lost our minds.
Aliens would think we had lost our minds.
larryh1108
Member
This is true. We should give released prisoners $30/hr jobs when they get out so they aren't tempted to take the easy way out and go back to their old habits. Makes sense.
Steel Horse Rider
Member
$30 an hour jobs do not make them reason any better, I know from experience, which is why I have sworn off of giving felons a second chance.
A follow up question for those of you who are in favor of restoration: Does that include the felons your President has been releasing early?
A follow up question for those of you who are in favor of restoration: Does that include the felons your President has been releasing early?
Are you talking about the commuted sentences for non-violent drug offences? Some of those people were decades into life sentences for possession, back in the days when crack got 3 times longer sentences than cocaine.
The topic aside, they should have never received the sentences they did in the first place.
Old Dog
Member
Yep. I keep hearing folks saying such as this.
Apparently, you're just not paying attention. Most of us have no problems going through our lives without committing crimes classed as felonies.
For sure, in my state, it's really, really tough to get to prison without trying ... YMMV.
DaisyCutter
Member
Prosecutors give probation pleas for drive-by shootings, and countless cases get turned down for prosecution. I never met a felon I wanted to arm.
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
I would potentially agree with you, but he wasn't. And as far as I know, he regrets doing what he did. The fact of the matter is that he is no threat to anyone. Either put him back in jail, execute him, or give him back his full rights. This idea of a half citizen is absurd. Either you have paid for your crimes and can be trusted, or you haven't and you can't.
The fact of the matter is if we can trust someone in society, then we can trust them with a gun. If we cannot trust them with a gun, then we cannot trust them in society period. A violent felon in my opinion is like a mentally retarded person; they cannot be trusted, ever.
Then again, our justice system has some very warped ideas about what constitutes a violent crime. For example, there was a pharmacist who lived in my state. He shot a bunch of robbers who had help him up at gun point on three separate occasions, and were armed at the time. The jury convicted him of murder because he reloaded. This guy was a threat only to people trying to unlawfully kill him, yet he will spend many years in prison. And if he gets out before he dies, he will never touch a gun again, despite the fact that he's a danger to no one.
larryh1108
Member
But you haven't paid for your crimes in total because your loss of certain rights is part of the punishment. You gave up those rights when you chose to be a felon. Of course, there are some exceptions as you have stated but that is where we should allow petitioning to get your rights back.
I guess all the immoral people should just be locked up, huh? Find an island for them and let them sort it out. Wait, didn't they try that a while back? So, only morally fit people should not be locked up? Who decides who is fit and who isn't? Yeah, I trust that system.
Him and 99.9% of all criminals who get caught. They cry remorse because they got caught and now face jail time. I'm sure there are some people who are sorry because they chose to be in some bad company but you act as if people who get caught doing 'whatever' did it that one time and got caught. Career criminals have been that way since they were old enough to think about right and wrong. A 50 year old child molester didn't wake up one day and decide to molest some kids. I'd bet he was doing it since he was 13 years old. Thieves have stolen since childhood. Professional liars learned their craft since they were old enough to gain trust by being 'slick'. Do you think Liddy got caught the first time he was shady? I'd bet he honed his craft since his teens. He's "sorry" because he got caught just like any creep. Criminals get caught for probably 1/100th of the laws they break. They regret it, of course, until they get out and do it again.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Exactly right.
Loss of rights is part of the punishment. Once someone has incurred Civil Death, there should be a process where they can get their rights back, but the burden of proof is on them to show they DESERVE and can be trusted with full rights.
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
The justice system isn't about punishment. It's about protecting society from those who would do it harm. Justice systems that focus on punishment, like our own, are good for nothing besides making dangerous criminals even more dangerous. That's why we have the highest rate of incarceration of any society on earth, as well as the highest rate of re-incarceration.
It doesn't even act as a deterrent. People who go to jail are the most likely to go to jail, and people with loved ones in prison are much more likely to end up in prison themselves. In other words, prison is not a deterrent. So we're not preventing people from going to jail, and we're making the ones who do more likely to return.
Anyone with traditional values can predict this. The Bible says vengeance belongs to God. It's not our job to punish criminals, but to protect society from them. If that means incarceration, or even execution, then so be it. But we do not try to punish them. And we don't take away any more of their rights than is completely necessary to protect society.
Thus, if someone can be trusted in society, then they can be trusted with a gun. If someone cannot be trusted with a gun, then they cannot be trusted in society, period.
It doesn't even act as a deterrent. People who go to jail are the most likely to go to jail, and people with loved ones in prison are much more likely to end up in prison themselves. In other words, prison is not a deterrent. So we're not preventing people from going to jail, and we're making the ones who do more likely to return.
Anyone with traditional values can predict this. The Bible says vengeance belongs to God. It's not our job to punish criminals, but to protect society from them. If that means incarceration, or even execution, then so be it. But we do not try to punish them. And we don't take away any more of their rights than is completely necessary to protect society.
Thus, if someone can be trusted in society, then they can be trusted with a gun. If someone cannot be trusted with a gun, then they cannot be trusted in society, period.
larryh1108
Member
We can agree to disagree. I'd be willing to bet that society would be far more violent and full of evil if there was no threat of jail. It is a big deterrent but to some, they just don't care. Those are the ones who should not get their rights back. They don't care about anyone else but themselves and their own wants and needs. They won't ever want to do the right thing because they just don't care.
matrem
Member
@ post 89.
I was saying that if one can't be trusted to roam free, why are they free?
Deadly force is easy to come by for anyone with ill intent.
I was saying that if one can't be trusted to roam free, why are they free?
Deadly force is easy to come by for anyone with ill intent.
- Status
