Help me with this gun control argument

[Ned Kelly]

Who is insane? Who would get to set the guidelines?

Why should a felon who has served his time be denied the right to life? or denied the right to bear arms?

He is one of the people isn't he.

What you get is that everytime something happens we want to find a niche of people to declare scapegoats for the problem. Deny them so long as we can keep ours.

First it was felons and people in a mental institution. Then it became people who were charged with domestic violence. Now it's people with Post traumatic stress disorder, bipolar, depression and any number of psychological disorders.

This list will continue to grow until no one can own a gun but a "perfect citizen"

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Any felon who is free from jail, has their freedom of religion, freedom of the press, right against self incrimination DO THEY NOT?!

They can't vote.

Arguing against background checks is not an effective way to turn people pro-gun.

If they are inherently dangerous individuals, why are they out of prison?

because you cannot legally keep people in prison after their sentence is done, and cannot financially keep every violent criminal in prison.


I guess here's the argument against it: "I believe that convicted felons should be allowed the most effective modern weapons available. The people who they will shoot should have thought twice before commuting to work without at least an 870 and some body armor, because if they think we should attempt to disarm people who will re-offend most of the time, they are just plain crazy. I'm sure that most felons ar trustworthy people, despite those stupid statistics. The violent felon is a lie, everyone was there because they cheated on their taxes. I believe these are the kinds of people George Washington himself would personally arm. In fact, it is unconstitutional to not let them have second amendment rights while incarcerated. If you restrict felons, you are trading away everyone's freedom, which is why we need to shut down those unconstitutional prisons. Even though they commit around 90% of all murders, felons don't kill people."

if you're deemed safe to not be in jail, you have your rights

The releases are based more on budget and liberal judges than who is and isn't safe.

 

[runrabbitrun]

The whole no voting or gun buying is a scare tactic imposed on the public to control us by our near socialist government.

Yep, someone who gets it.

 

[Harve Curry]

We have citizens now who grew up not knowing anything but back ground NIC's checks.
Not knowing anything but filling out a 4473 form to buy a firearm.
Not knowing about how it felt like Christmas when the US mail man arrived with that new firearm you ordered, and he wanted to see it to.
It's about FREEDOM.

 

[CoRoMo]

Our government was never granted the power and authority to limit the rights of the people. They don't have the ability to revoke our rights. Rights are not privileges, which can be taken away.

Favoring the criminalization of the rights, for persons with felony records, is an intolerant, bigoted, prejudice, and discriminatory point of view against a group of people as diverse as any that exists.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Our government was never granted the power and authority to limit the rights of the people. They don't have the ability to revoke our rights. Rights are not privileges, which can be taken away.

They indeed have that power. The person just must be convicted by a jury.

Favoring the criminalization of the rights, for persons with felony records, is an intolerant, bigoted, prejudice, and discriminatory point of view against a group of people as diverse as any that exists.

I favor imprisoning convicted felons? Am I a bigot? I also favor not letting violent felons have firearms, am I a bigot?
The majority of these people will re-offend. There is also a reason they are in prison. They are also responsible for 90% of all murders. It's not hateful to say we shouldn't give these people even more firepower.

 

[Cards81fan]

As a Libertarian, I agree with the principal of the background check and the prohibition of gun ownership by convicted violent felons, but I disagree with the bureaucracy and execution of the laws. The intent is to protect the civil liberties of the "innocent" but in reality is subjects me to unnecessary scrutiny by the government.

I have nothing to hide. I have never been denied a firearm purchase, and the 5 minunte NICS isn't a big deal overall, but it's the principle of the whole thing. If I couldn't legally buy a gun from a retail store or other dealer, I'd still have no problem knowing how to get one. The system is laughable at best, and fatally flawed at worst.

Making something illegal does not prevent criminals from engaging in the activity. They're notoriously resourceful. There needs to be more effective resources and systems (i.e. parole and criminal justice), not more teethless legislation.

I also think that an outright ban on gun ownership by felons is absurd. A guy I know has had 5 or 6 DUIs, but can still get a driver's license and car insurance. Ban him from owning a car, not from owning a gun!!

 

[JImbothefiveth]

I only support taking it away for violent felons.

 

[Harve Curry]

The old expression was "served your debt to society" .

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Most of them haven't though. Most are re-arrested. They commit 90% of all murders.

 

[RP88]

I'll start opposing background checks and supporting automatic restoration of rights to felons once felons start actually serving the time they deserve to be sentenced to. A felon who gets out of jail after six months for a ten-year crime is not what I'd consider as such.

A good example is that TI rapper idiot who got tagged for a year in prison on multiple weapons and NFA violations while already being a felon. Going by the charges, he should be in jail for a good 30 years. If any of us did something like this (even without a felony conviction), we may be lucky to make it out on good behavior by the 2016 election. Either way, is that really serving your debt to society?

the problem with the NCIS check = infringement argument is that it boils down to an argument on our crappy justice system - not about gun control.

 

[Ben86]

The background check system we have now is probably about as good as it will get without seriously infringing on our rights. It is quick, effective and mostly not abused.

However, I do believe that non-violent felon offenders should have their 2nd amendment rights restored. Just because old lady Margret stole a felony amount of jewlery in her younger days shouldn't mean she can never have the aid of a handgun for self-defense.

 

[CoRoMo]

I also favor not letting violent felons have firearms, am I a bigot?
The majority of these people will re-offend.

JImbo...

We have a fundamental disagreement on this issue. The government was never granted the power or the means to acquire that power at its founding. It was the other way around. The Constitution limited what government could do, but of course, over the past couple centuries, it has chipped away at our liberty in exchange for power and authority over us. Too many Americans are comfortable with that. Far too many Americans prefer that.

I know for a fact that there are freed men with felony records who don't deserve to have this right criminalized. They should be allowed the freedom to defend their family, their home, themselves, and their freedom. I'm not talking about the duty of the government to incarcerate convicted criminals. The argument regarding the failures of our nations correctional system is quite complex and isn't allowed here other than this thin connection with the 2nd Amendment. We could debate who shouldn't see the light of day and who should be freed, how and why, but that discussion doesn't have a welcome home on this forum.

Casting a blanket view over any group regardless of whether the majority, or especially the minority, of that group reflects that view, is prejudiced. Your post verifies that not all members of this group deserve such treatment. So, yes, it is bigoted to think that way. Replace the word felon with any other group's label and there you have it. I'm not going to attack you personally, but the view I described is in fact unjustly discriminatory.

 

[Ned Kelly]

I'll start opposing background checks and supporting automatic restoration of rights to felons once felons start actually serving the time they deserve to be sentenced to. A felon who gets out of jail after six months for a ten-year crime is not what I'd consider as such.

That's not entirely the whole story. When a felon is released they are usually on parole for years. During this time they are still serving their sentence. During that time I would agree they shouldn't have firearms. Once Parole is over I believe they should have their rights restored.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Replace the word felon with any other group's label and there you have it.

What other group is like a felon though? Where the majority of them will re-offend and they were not born in to the group, they chose the group.

Okay, here's one organization that follows those criteria:

I also favor not letting violent al-queda have firearms, am I a bigot?
The majority of these people will commit terrorist acts.

Yeah, that's really bigoted.

 

[Ruggles]

Why is having a background check infringing upon their 2nd A rights?

Use a little sense and anybody can see that it does not have to be "any gun for anybody or no guns for anybody". There is a middle ground where common sense can dictate firearm laws and regulations. It has been is practice for along time. The 1990s brought us the AWB (which I disagree with) but it also brought us a huge increase in number of states allowing "shall issues" CCW.

 

[Ruggles]

"I also think that an outright ban on gun ownership by felons is absurd. A guy I know has had 5 or 6 DUIs, but can still get a driver's license and car insurance. Ban him from owning a car, not from owning a gun!!"

Ban from both I would say. In many cases people who abuse their rights in society should lose those rights, in a number of cases for good.

Felons with guns is an ideal which I can not support. The rights they lose (and there are a number of them) are part of their "punishment" from society to go along with their jail time. Just because they finished their jail term does not mean they have paid their debt IMO.

 

[Noebb]

As more federal laws are created, there will be more felons. I would hate to see people loose rights because they violate the (425 ILCS 60/) Smoke Detector Act.

Also, A prosecution for malicious destruction of property can result in a felony conviction, if the dollar amount of damage exceeds $250. (I think the amount is correct, it may differ by state.)

Imagine a usually good kid/person/adult pulling an 'Innocent' prank, things go wrong accidentally causing damage to someones $500 PDA/cell. That meets the dollar amount for a felony. He/she looses rights forever...

IMHO, There is a difference between a felon and violent felon.

In my ideal world. I would like to see only violent criminals lose basic rights this would include violent felons, those that are a current subject of a restraining order (again only violent tendency), etc.


.

 

[Harve Curry]

Ruggles ,
But we are not talking about IMO's or I think. It is RIGHTS and how the Law is written, words, that matters. The words used in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the first law by which all others must or should be measured by.

 

[Ned Kelly]

It's easy to say you don't care about a an x-con owning a gun until you end up being one. My brother-in-law is an x-con and hasn't broken the law for twenty five years.

He still can't own a gun though.

What if someone breaks into your home and you defend yourself. Instead of Justifiable homicide , They decide to slap a manslaugher charge on you?

You serve your time and get out. Now you can no longer defend your family.

 

[Ruggles]

"The words used in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is the first law by which all others must or should be measured by."

These documents have to be interrupted and at time changed as times passes. The founders included ways to do so, I can only assume that they fully intended this to occur or in the very least that it maybe need to occur.

 

[Ruggles]

"It's easy to say you don't care about a an x-con owning a gun until you end up being one. My brother-in-law is an x-con and hasn't broken the law for twenty five years.

He still can't own a gun though.

What if someone breaks into your home and you defend yourself. Instead of Justifiable homicide , They decide to slap a manslaugher charge on you?

You serve your time and get out. Now you can no longer defend your family."


We both could give examples of both sides of this all day long. I still do not want or see the need to change the law.

Even more important than that is there is no way that a law allowing felons to own firearms is going to pass into law in our lifetime. Trying to put forth such a ideal / law will just play into the hands of folks who think we are already nuts for supporting any gun rights.

"My fellow Americans Mr. Smith of the NRA not only wants to own a evil AK47 death rifle with a 30 round magazine but wants felons to be able to own one as well"

That should really help our cause......

 

[KBintheSLC]

Just tell them that with the ridiculous number of frivolous "felonies" on the books these days, they could be next. If they still don't believe you, tell them to go write some bad checks, or evade some taxes... or better yet, get busted smoking a joint down in Vegas.

These are the things people loose their fundamental rights for every day. As for the hardened criminals, drug cartels, and psychos... no one ever accused them of having regard for the law in the first place.

 

[6_gunner]

I like this argument:

Considerable amounts of tax payers' money is being spent on background checks which have proven ineffective as a crime deterrent. The money would be better spent somewhere else.

 

[CoRoMo]

+1 Ned

Noebb... class 4 felony according to Smoke Detector Act?
Good example of how some people don't choose to join the "felon organization"

I also favor not letting violent al-queda have firearms, am I a bigot?
The majority of these people will commit terrorist acts.

I hope you are not then advocating that the 2nd Amendment rights be criminalized for certain people according to the associations they make. I'm in no way defending membership in Al-Qaeda, but I'm sure you'd agree that once the feds find the membership in a group, rather than actions, to be reason enough to criminalize their Constitutional rights, we all could soon get caught by that federal weirdo filter.

Ned's brother-in-law is a prime example of how this is infringement. He, and many others, don't deserve such tyranny.

I guarantee that if you were aware of a felony crime that you inadvertently committed, but were never charged for, you'd keep your guns despite your belief that felons don't deserve to freely exercise that right. Or would you instantly surrender your arms once you realized that they business deal you participated in last year was actually a felony?

Casting a blanket view over any group regardless of whether the majority, or especially the minority, of that group reflects that view, is prejudiced. Your post verifies that not all members of this group deserve such treatment. So, yes, it is bigoted to think that way. Your line about 'the majority of them will re-offend' might be true, but to cast the minority in with them is the quintessential example of prejudice.