Opinion: Who Should be Prohibited for Life?

Status
Not open for further replies.
"If I can keep a legal gun out of ______'s hands, I can stop him from commiting the crimes he might do in the future"

It's a BS argument when the antis say it. And it's a BS argument now.
Click to expand...

And always will be.
 
"If I can keep a legal gun out of ______'s hands, I can stop him from commiting the crimes he might do in the future"

It's a BS argument when the antis say it. And it's a BS argument now.
Click to expand...

This is perfect.

There are a lot of 2A-supporting people posting about lifetime prohibition for felons that either are not thinking logically, or are hypocrites.

Bob
 
Ragnar Danneskjold said:
"If I can keep a legal gun out of ______'s hands, I can stop him from commiting the crimes he might do in the future"

It's a BS argument when the antis say it. And it's a BS argument now.
Click to expand...
Any estimate on the probability of recidivism is between 0 and 1. If the data that we have collected indicates a certain probability, our society has to decide whether it can live with that probability.

Sent using Tapatalk
 
There are a lot of 2A-supporting people posting about lifetime prohibition for felons that either are not thinking logically, or are hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Which goes back to the "as long as they're in a class separate from me, I don't care" line of thinking.

Well friends, we must hang together or we will surely hang separately.
 
mljdeckard

i suppose there might be a way for him to seek a change in his statusl re: arms sales and ownership. the guy just doesn't have the bread to do so. i myself have never looked into such procedures. thanks for the insight.
 
Come to think of it, everyone is "prohibited for life" from harming other people without provocation and from taking their property * but it does not stop criminals from assauting people and taking their stuff.

Why would you expect a weapon prohibition for criminals to work any better?

*only the government can do that.
 
Last edited:
Why would you expect a weapon prohibition for criminals to work any better?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't . But a if a felon is caught with a weapon, that crime is easier to prosecute than any crome he may have committed with the weapon.
 
In my opinion,

There are too many acts defined as crimes by vote-buyers.

There are too many crimes defined as felonies by vote-buyers.

However, violating their oath of office is not a crime for vote-buyers.

Actual violent felons and actual sex criminals (e.g. rapists, child molesters) should be put down like we put down any mad dogs.

If a person is not detained, in a prison or hospital, against their will by due process, he should be a wholly free citizen.

Punishment is valid for criminals to experience. It doesn't matter that it may not change their future behavior. It matters that they get the spanking. They earned it. If it does happen to alter their future behavior=bonus.

I think and believe that we, as free citizens, are presently only one wild hair away from a vote-buyer making any of us felons. For votes. For the job. For the headlines. For the spotlight.

For the simple thrill that the power of destruction over "them" gives to the groin.
 
Suppose someone does have a criminal conviction in their past?

Have they lost their natural right to defend themselves?

If not, how can they defend themselves without the proper tools?

I don't really have a problem with non-violent fellons having guns on their own property for self defense.
 
Many felons have been convicted of vices rather than crimes against others.

A vice is an act in which a man harms himself, using drugs to get high for example.

A crime is an act in which a man harms another person or their property, theft assault, rape fraud etc.

Vices are errors in judgenent people make in their own pursuit of happiness.

Crimes are a violent infringements on the rights of others.

Should people whose only “crime” is harming or endangering themselves be prohibited from owning the means to defend their lives from real criminals?
 
Okay, here is a scenario.

A gang member gets into a fight with another person and gets charged and convicted of aggravated assault (violent crime). He does his jail time and is released with his gun ownership rights restored (as some of you want). He goes out, legally buys a handgun and tracks down the person (or people) that he got into a fight with and shoots them.

Now, a person who has a violent past, that you have legally allowed to own a firearm, has used it to kill somebody. Now that makes every single legal gun owner look bad, and gives the Brady Bunch more ammunition with which to try to take our guns away. Had he not been allowed to own a gun, would he have gotten one? Probably. Would it have hurt the reputation of the other 99.99% of legal gun owners in this country (you and I)? Not so much.

Now, call me a hypocrite, but the idea of legally putting a gun into the hands of a person already convicted of a violent crime is just ignorant.

(If a person can gain a pardon from a governor, that is a different story.)
 
What about a person convicted of a vice, a crime against himself?
Click to expand...

Doctors are not allowed to assist suicides (mercy killings), and our legislature shouldn't either. The mentally ill should have to undergo a psychiatric evaluation to deem if they are a danger to themselves or another (or if they would be if they owned a firearm).
 
I only think that violent felons should never own a gun. Non-violent felons should get their rights back after 5 -10 years of no run ins with the law. One felon I read about went to jail for 5 years for drug dealing. When he got out he completely turned his life around and stayed within the law as a upstanding citizen. Then after a few years he became a avid gun owner. He was one until a new law was passed that prohibited him from owning a gun because he was a felon. I'm not sure if he got his rights back or not but last I heard he was still fighting the conviction. Because of that guy I feel as though that a full on ban on felons owning guns is unreasonable.
 
Now, call me a hypocrite, but the idea of legally putting a gun into the hands of a person already convicted of a violent crime is just ignorant.
Click to expand...

You are a hypocrite and a control freak, if you feel better because you told someone that they couldn't do something by supporting a law.

Newsflash: Even if you feel better because of a law revoking someone's supposedly God Given and Constitutionally Protected lolrights, they still can and will break your law if they really want to. The only people you're screwing with are otherwise decent people who messed up at some point. This is just ignorant.

We, as a society, need to get over the thought that we allow others to do things based on the laws we make or don't make. We aren't responsible for someone doing something bad, just because we didn't make everything in the world illegal.
 
allaroundhunter said:
Okay, here is a scenario.

A gang member gets into a fight with another person and gets charged and convicted of aggravated assault (violent crime). He does his jail time and is released with his gun ownership rights restored (as some of you want). He goes out, legally buys a handgun and tracks down the person (or people) that he got into a fight with and shoots them.

Now, a person who has a violent past, that you have legally allowed to own a firearm, has used it to kill somebody. Now that makes every single legal gun owner look bad, and gives the Brady Bunch more ammunition with which to try to take our guns away. Had he not been allowed to own a gun, would he have gotten one? Probably. Would it have hurt the reputation of the other 99.99% of legal gun owners in this country (you and I)? Not so much.

Now, call me a hypocrite, but the idea of legally putting a gun into the hands of a person already convicted of a violent crime is just ignorant.

(If a person can gain a pardon from a governor, that is a different story.)
Click to expand...
Okay. You're a hypocrite.
 
I wouldn't . But a if a felon is caught with a weapon, that crime is easier to prosecute than any crome he may have committed with the weapon.
Click to expand...

Thats a great argument! It is better to infringe on the rights of the many so we don't have to make the effort to prosecute the few. Not to mention, we can make criminals out of people that otherwise didn't do anything wrong. Brilliant, I wish I would have thought of it.
 
I don't have a problem with barring all felons from possession or ownership of firearms. Contrary to what folks believe, the period of punishment is not just the time behind bars. That is only one aspect of it. Loss of certain rights is the part of the punishment that doesn't have a deadline.

If the felony was something non-violent, then the felon can pursue legal channels to get his/her rights restored. That is part of the law as well.

I find it rather bizarre that folks are willing to risk losing such rights during the commission of felonies.
 
It is better to infringe on the rights of the many so we don't have to make the effort to prosecute the few. Not to mention, we can make criminals out of people that otherwise didn't do anything wrong. Brilliant, I wish I would have thought of it.
Click to expand...

I didn't think of it either. As Ragnar said earlier in the thread, the government figured it out a long time ago.
 
Have they lost their natural right to defend themselves?

If not, how can they defend themselves without the proper tools?
Click to expand...

Firearms are not the only defensive tool.
 
It is better to infringe on the rights of the many so we don't have to make the effort to prosecute the few. Not to mention, we can make criminals out of people that otherwise didn't do anything wrong.
Click to expand...

Come to think of it this is the exact formula race based laws in the old South worked.
Because some Black people were prone to _________, then ALL black people were suspected of being up to no good and prohibited from being in "our" part of town after dark.

Funny how some people scream when collectivism is applied to people based on race, sex, ethnicity or wearing a hoodie but they turn the blind eye when it is applied based on gun ownership. They see all gun owners as no better than the least common denominator and support laws that treat anyone found with a weapon as a criminal BEFORE THE FACT.

Crime is an ACTION, not the potential for an action.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Prohibited from purchasing handgun?
Replies
12
Views
1K
yhtomit
Y
L
  • Locked
Who should be able to have guns?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
137
Views
4K
ksnecktieman
K
M
  • Locked
Changing the definition of a "prohibited person"?
Replies
22
Views
1K
DMF
D
L
  • Locked
Feinstein, Kennedy introduce anti gun bill
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
AndyC
A
U
  • Locked
Lautenburg and Heller
Replies
7
Views
449
usmarine0352_2005
U
Back
Top