alsaqr
Member
In my lifetime i've had two home invasion shootouts with convicted violent felons who were released to prey on society once again. The current prohibition on gun ownership by felons will not change anytime soon: i like it that way.
Opinion: Who Should be Prohibited for Life?
- Thread starter ArtP
- Start date
- Status
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
So the current prohibition worked well for you, then?
481
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,418
Wouldn't that be nice? Of course, it'll still be subject to the same influences that accompany the administration of any such system by human beings.
For that reason, I doubt very much that we'd see much difference between the two systems.
A perfect concept remains perfect only until it is enacted as policy.
alsaqr
Member
i sincerely hope those in favor of arming violent felons never have a shootout with violent gun armed felons. If they do i hope they survive as i did. In the meantime i'm secure in the fact the law will not change anytime soon.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Certainly! Did the fact that it was illegal for those guys to have firearms seem to bother them much? Were they conflicted about it, or did they seem overly worried about the consequences of being caught with firearms?
If the law said that it was lawful for them to be armed, do you think they would have been MORE armed than they were? Would they have presented a greater danger to you if it was legal for them to own those weapons?
I read somewhere that assault with a deadly weapons was illegal and housebreaking and home invasion were illegal. Seems those laws didn't stop these guys either, though.
I wonder which laws we could pass that would have made you safer?
Resist Evil
Member
Remember that "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results." quote ascribed to Einstein? How can a person continue to support or make gun control laws and not be considered insane?
If a special class of people is created and laws are made to forbid that class from firearm possession forever, functionally the laws are useless. Really, what law can be made that will literally keep anyone from possessing a firearm? None, in my opinion. I'm fairly certain some German soldiers discovered the truth of it in Warsaw, Poland briefly in the spring of 1943.
Elitist prohibitions against what people want or think they need are not successful. The war on guns in this country is as successful as the wars on liquor, drugs, the Constitution, and poverty have been.
If a special class of people is created and laws are made to forbid that class from firearm possession forever, functionally the laws are useless. Really, what law can be made that will literally keep anyone from possessing a firearm? None, in my opinion. I'm fairly certain some German soldiers discovered the truth of it in Warsaw, Poland briefly in the spring of 1943.
Elitist prohibitions against what people want or think they need are not successful. The war on guns in this country is as successful as the wars on liquor, drugs, the Constitution, and poverty have been.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Actually, the war on the Constitution has been pretty effective.
allaroundhunter
Member
Regardless of whether it discouraged them or not, they got one. Now, the problem for us responsible gun owners is that if there were legally allowed to own them and committed a crime with them, then it would reflect badly on us.
If violent felons were legally allowed to own firearms, then they would commit more violent acts with them, and then there would be further action taken to take away firearms from ALL legal owners, including those of us who have never been violent towards another human being.
There is too much naivety here saying that we should give violent criminal offenders firearms. If a man who was just released from prison for attempted murder arrived at your doorstep and asked politely for you to sell him a gun, would you really not hesitate to sell one to him (if you had one you wanted to sell)? Do you honestly trust him enough to say that he has been rehabilitated to the extent that he is no longer a threat....
As has been said, a jail sentence is only part of the punishment for criminals. The rest of their punishment is to live outside of prison walls without firearms (among other things). I have no problem valuing one life over another, and if anyone here says that they value every single life in this world equally then they are lying. Violent criminals have proven that they do not have respect for others, and for that reason, they lose my respect.
Last edited:
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
There is a legal concept embodied in the words Malum in se vs. malum prohibitum
That which is wrong because the action is inherently wrong, and that which is wrong simply because there is a law against it.
Murder is inherently wrong, not just because there is a law against it. The law is there to give us the power to punish a wrong act after the fact.
A felon carrying a gun is wrong just because we passed a law 40 years or so ago that made it so. The actions of carrying the gun harms no one.
Furthermore, laws that are twice removed from their harmful consequences are hard to justify. By that I mean 'murder->someone is harmed' That is a direct cause and effect action. But 'carrying a gun->murder->someone is harmed' is separated by the harmful consequences by two actions. The carrying of the gun did not harm anyone. It's still the murder that was the actual harmful event.
Laws that either directly prevent harmful actions or punish those who harm others are just. Laws against murder, theft, destruction of peroperty, etc are all just because they are laws that are in direct opposition to harmful actions
But laws that seek to prevent other actions which may lead to harm are not just. You're not attacking the harmful action. You're attacking a harmless action, and doing it against a wide swath of citizens, just in the hopes that you may stop a few crimes in the process. It's like fishing for trout with a pole and fly vs. running a drag-net through a river. One catches specifically the fish you want. The other catches everything in hopes you get a few fish you want. Fine for fish. Not so fine when it's American citizens getting their rights infringed just so you can try to stop a few crimes the lazy way.
As henschman noted, a better system is to have laws that are in direct opposition to harmful actions. Law, at it's core, should be punitive, not preventative. Prevention is certainly a positive byproduct, but it's achieved through the threat of punishment for breaking it. It's very tempting to try to pass law after law in hopes that you will prevent more harm. But once you start passing laws that don't prevent harm, but only prevent arbitrary action in the hopes THAT will eventually prevent some harm, you are stepping outside the limits of just authority.
A man should be free to act as he will, secure in his rights up to the point his actions adversely affect others. Government's just role has always been to keep one from harming another, not from harming themselves or more importantly, not from acting in ways that may lead to other actions which lead to harm. Driving a car can lead to an accident which can kill. But we punish those who actually cause accidents, not limiting people from driving because they might cause an accident. The same should be applied to firearms and those who can own them. Punish those who harm others with guns, and use that punishment as a threat to keep people from harming others with guns. But a law that seeks to prevent simple possession, even without the harmful action, while perhaps noble in it's intent, is inherently unjust.
Isn't it said "better to let 100 guilty men go free than to imprison 1 innocent"? Well better to let 100 ex felons have guns than infringe the rights of 1 ex felon who will never actually harm another.
If the day comes when he does harm someone, we'll punish him for that. But I am not comfortable casting a wide net and curtailing the rights of millions just in the hope that it might stop a handful of crimes that we don't even know are going to happen. That's what the antis do. It's unbecoming a freedom loving American.
Last edited:
allaroundhunter
Member
The difference here is a propensity for violence. If a person has proven to be violent (a violent criminal offender) it has been proven that that propensity for violence does not go away.
allaroundhunter
Member
Actually, murder is not inherently wrong. Human sacrifice has been a common theme throughout history. It might *seem* inherent now, because most countries have laws against it, but it has not always been so.
Resist Evil
Member
self-deleted
alsaqr
Member
+1
Many of the folks who propose allowing all felons to legally own guns don't know who these people are.
Some would allow all of these convicted felons to own guns:
http://docapp8.doc.state.ok.us/serv...ined=ALL&SearchAW=ALL&SearchOpt=ALL&zip=73505
JRH6856
Member
Interesting question. If you don't think we shouldn't, why do you think we should?
P5 Guy
Member
Life Time Prohibition
When the court ordered punishment has been satisfied and restitution paid then the criminal should have all the rights any other citizen has.
Besides the right to firearms the other rights; such as voting, holding elected office, and be eligible for licenses for plumber, electrician, hair dresser, day care and all the various occupations the several states cover.
If society cannot trust the person with a firearm, WHY would society allow the person to vote? And in my opinion, even out of prison?
When the court ordered punishment has been satisfied and restitution paid then the criminal should have all the rights any other citizen has.
Besides the right to firearms the other rights; such as voting, holding elected office, and be eligible for licenses for plumber, electrician, hair dresser, day care and all the various occupations the several states cover.
If society cannot trust the person with a firearm, WHY would society allow the person to vote? And in my opinion, even out of prison?
bikemutt
Member
Here is a situation that goes beyond the pale; Washington State's civil commitment law that allows the state to indefinitely incarcerate someone, even after they've served their time and been determined safe to be released back into society.
http://www.doc.wa.gov/community/sexoffenders/civilcommitment.asp
What I think precipitated this too many of these guys being turned loose and going right back to business as usual; raping, torturing and murdering innocent citizens, children in some cases. The public DEMANDED that something be done, so now we have prison forever.
I have a feeling if violent felons who served their time were allowed to lawfully own guns again, it would not be long before the same hue and cry from the public would get us right back to where we are now, or further.
http://www.doc.wa.gov/community/sexoffenders/civilcommitment.asp
What I think precipitated this too many of these guys being turned loose and going right back to business as usual; raping, torturing and murdering innocent citizens, children in some cases. The public DEMANDED that something be done, so now we have prison forever.
I have a feeling if violent felons who served their time were allowed to lawfully own guns again, it would not be long before the same hue and cry from the public would get us right back to where we are now, or further.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
This is a blatantly spurious argument.
Murder HARMs someone. Deprives them of their life.
As Ragnar said very well, the difference between malum in se and malum prohibitdum.
An ex felon possessing a firearm is not an act that harms anyone.
And a law that says they can't legally possess a gun doesn't KEEP them from a)having a gun, or b) hurting someone. This is really the take home message. Not necessarily that the felon possession law is bad. Simply that it is irrelevant. Yet, obviously, we cling to it as though is makes things better somehow. My baby sister-in-law used to have a filthy pink "security blanket" she drug around everywhere. It did just as much to keep the bad people under control.
Last edited:
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
The light dawns!
Er, seriously?
No, I utterly reject that premise. The acts of a violent person do not reflect on me, regardless of whether he possessed the tools of violence legally or illegally.
REALLY? MORE? More than the tens of thousands of violent acts already committed by felons illegally in possession of firearms for the 2nd, 5th, 10th, etc. time? That's not a very believable statement.
I know/knew a man who spent 25 years in jail for armed robbery. I'd give him a firearm in a heartbeat, were it legal to do so. That's a special case, but just like anyone else I might sell to, it would be a judgment call at the time. There are pleny of very dangerous people who have not been convicted of any crime. But that's beside the point. Felons CAN have guns -- as many as they want and with less red tape than you or I go through. There is NO deterrent provided by this law. If they want them, they will get them. If they are disposed to do violence, they will do so. Period.
allaroundhunter
Member
Neither is allowing a 14 year old to drive a car. However, it is something very easily could lead to someone getting hurt....
Sam, we have a misunderstanding with how I meant that. I meant that they would commit more violent acts on top of the others that they had previously been imprisoned for; not that they would commit more illegal acts if they legally had a gun as opposed to illegally acquiring one. Poor choice of wording on my part.
This thread is going to have to be a different strokes for different folks thing...
oneounceload
member
Because we don't want to hurt their feelings or compromise their civil rights by having them in an overcrowded prison - poor babies.....and the dems needed those prisoners and dead folks voting to win the last elections.......
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
I'm afraid I must still not understand your statement.
If violent (ex-)felons desire to commit further violent acts, they obtain guns (illegally) and commit those acts of violence (obviously also illegally).
If they possessing firearms was not illegal for them, they would obtain guns at the same rates (though legally) and commit the same acts of violence (obviously, still illegally).
It sounds as if you're saying that lawful ownership of guns by freed felons would CAUSE or ALLOW more violent recidivist crimes than already happen, which seems unfounded. We accept that gun laws do not prevent crimes in general, so surely they do not prevent crimes specifically by recidivists in specific, either.
PedalBiker
Member
A convicted felon with a gun?
How about a convicted felon driving his car at 65mph past my bicycle on a state highway?
How about a convicted felon shopping at Walmart where anyone can buy sulfur, saltpeter and charcoal briquettes?
How about a convicted felon running a landscaping business?
I'm all for some restrictions on gun ownership for violent offenders within reason. If you stole a car or ripped off a mortgage company the gun prohibition is unreasonable.
I think a whole lot of this "felon" stuff is frankly unconstitutional (especially in light of the pansy charges cops get when they beat someone senseless).
How about a convicted felon driving his car at 65mph past my bicycle on a state highway?
How about a convicted felon shopping at Walmart where anyone can buy sulfur, saltpeter and charcoal briquettes?
How about a convicted felon running a landscaping business?
I'm all for some restrictions on gun ownership for violent offenders within reason. If you stole a car or ripped off a mortgage company the gun prohibition is unreasonable.
I think a whole lot of this "felon" stuff is frankly unconstitutional (especially in light of the pansy charges cops get when they beat someone senseless).
mortablunt
Member
Especially the guy who sings out of tune at screenings of Rocky Horror.
- Status