Please don't hate me: Confessions from a 2nd Ammendment Hypocrite

[priv8ter]

I was having a discussion at work the other day about what the 2nd Ammendment means, and who should be able to own what kind of guns. I started defending the position that anyone should be able to own whatever kind of guns that they want. And, well, at one point in the discussion, I admited that a certain group of people should not be able to own guns.




I was forced to agree that people convicted of commiting a violent felony should not be able to own guns once they are released from prison.

I didn't say all felonies, and I didn't say forever. But, I think if you have been convicted of committing a violent felony(rape, murdr, using a firearm in the commission of a crime) that you should not be able to purchase a gun for at least a year after you are released from prison.

Do I think this will really stop anything bad from happening? No...because they will get the gun some other means if they want to break the law some more. I just don't think we should make it easier for them.

So...I guess I am just begging for forgiveness from all of you out there who feel their should be no infringing upon the right of a person to keep and bear arms.

Thank you.

Greg

 

[MicroBalrog]

I agree with you (well, that doesn't say much.)

Well, John Ross agrees with you. That's in fact the JR position on the matter. Perhaps the man would comment further.

 

[swifter]

Jeeze.

I'm hard corps on the Second.

There are people, both individuals and classes, that I do not like having arms. Or matches, or access to gasoline, or a hell of a lot of other things...
I just try to keep in mind:Freedom is not now or ever safe...


Tom

 

[mercedesrules]

I hate you.

Trouble is, trying to enforce that one law would mean all of the paperwork, signatures, background checks and red tape we have now. I'm willing to trade some small possibility that a few tough guys might waltz into Wal-Mart and buy a gun at retail for the liberty of doing so myself - untraced, untracked, untaxed and unquestioned.

MR

 

[jsalcedo]

Why on earth would a felon buy a gun from a dealer even if it was legal?

He could be traced back to the sale at some point or the dealer might remember him if the cops come calling.

If I'm not mistaken a stolen gun is cheaper than a store bought.

Just like hot electronics are cheaper than retail (I'm not advocating buying stolen merchandise)

Criminals do best to stay away from gun shops and historically I don't think
they have ever used gun shows and dealers to get weapons for drive bys and holdups.

I don't like felons having guns either but no law will ever stop it from happening.

 

[vmi93]

Are felons members of the militia?

If we can answer this question, I think we can at lease figure out what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the law.

I do know that at that time, all felonies could be punished with death, but that many first-time offenders were "let off" with mutilation or other corporal punishment.

So, are there any colonial history experts who know if surviving convicted felons were obligated to serve in the militia?

 

[Standing Wolf]

I don't have a problem with prohibiting violent felons from keeping and bearing arms. If you commit a crime, you lose your freedom, and the more severe the crime, the more severe the loss of freedom ought to be.

 

[rock jock]

If the law worked like its supposed to, this wouldn't even be an issue. Violent felons would be incarcerated for so long they would be old men by the time they got out. Either that or they would be put to death. As it stands, they are often given token sentences that reflect the liberal establishment's guilt for social ills that they unwittingly helped to create. Thus, they are still threats to society and should be barred for life from possessing firearms.

 

[Mike Irwin]

If someone has committed a violent felony I sure as hell don't want that person having access to a firearm at any time in the future.

 

[Glock Glockler]

If someone has committed a violent felony I sure as hell don't want that person having access to a firearm at any time in the future.

No problem, let's just pass some type of legislation and we won't have to worry about it ever again. Everyone knows once you pass a law that the problem goes away.

Does someone who was convicted of a violent felony loose their right to freedom of speech and religion? What about their right not to be unreasonably searched and their property seized? Why do we, who are supposed to be advocates of people's natural rights, then feel so comfortable stripping someone of the RKBA?

If you are actually interested in doing something about violent crime, instead of feeling that you're doing something, you should:

- fully recognize RKBA
- End the welfare state
- lower taxes dramatically
- punish criminals harshly, yet still make a strong effort to rehabilitate them the best we can.
- do our part so that women that stay at home to raise their family are not made to feel scorned by radical feminists and their ilk. Raise and school your children right, and help others do the same.

 

[Edward429451]

If someone has committed a violent felony I sure as hell don't want that person having access to a firearm at any time in the future.

How bout;

If someone has commited a violent felony I sure as hell don't want that person having access to a society at any time in the future. Better?

If that don't work, then we could outlaw guns, then boxcutters, then gasoline, then sharpened sticks, then pointed fingers, then raised voices.

The criminal is in the man, not the object. Criminals adapt. Lock them up forever or kill them, thats the only answer. Sadly though, doing that doesn't go well with the administrations agenda...

 

[Monkeyleg]

If my hazy memory serves me correctly, prior to 1968 a felon who had served his sentence could buy a gun. The idea then was that a felon who had served his time and was released was no longer considered a danger to society, or else he would have not been released.

Correct me if I'm wrong on that.

I have a brother-in-law who really screwed up, drove drunk and injured himself and his passenger pretty severely. He was charged with a felony, and has been straight as an arrow ever since. He'd like to have a few rights restored: the right to vote, and the right to own a gun (he'd like to go hunting).

From my limited research, it seems like he needs to have some upstanding politician-types come to his aid (if true, something he's going to need me to call in favors for). He's going to have to go before a court and have these upstanding types support him.

True, or urban legend?

 

[Mike Irwin]

"If someone has commited a violent felony I sure as hell don't want that person having access to a society at any time in the future. Better?"

Depending on the felony, that works for me, too, Edward.

Barring that, I'm more than happy that violent felons with firearms live in your neighborhood.

Given the rate of recividism (sp?) among predicate violent felons, I'm sure you'll sleep well at night.

I don't care whether it's legal access, illegal access, or what. Those with violent felonies to their credit don't get another bite at some apples, as far as I'm concerned.

Sorry if this rocks anyone's "absolute rights absolutely" world. But as I've said before, even the Founding Fathers/Framers didn't believe all rights to be absolute.

 

[Drjones]

I just don't think we should make it easier for them.

Ah. You mean like how we've made .50 BMG rifles and .50 S&W revolvers so easily available that they are now the "weapons of choice" for criminals?

Oh, nevermind the $3,000 price tag of the .50 rifle or the $1,000 price tag of the S&W.

Nevermind that the .50 rifle is over 3 ft. long and weighs what, 25 lbs?

And we all know that the .50 S&W revolver is just microscopic thus making it even more attractive to criminals who can very easily conceal such devastating weapons.

Oh, and they can shoot down satellites and airplanes with those guns too!

Heck, even a Beretta at $600 in a gun shop is easily available to criminals, right?

Sorry dude...doesn't float....

My biggest concern is; we don't trust him to own a gun, but we will let him out of prison in the first place???

Don't get me wrong; of course in my perfect world nobody predisposed to criminal behavior would even be alive let alone own anything that could be used as a weapon, but that's just not reality.

 

[cordex]

So you don't trust a violent felon with a .22 rifle, but you trust them to drive around schools in 2,000lb guided kill-death smashmobiles and the ingredients to make explosives?
Hrm.
If people can't be trusted in society with guns, they probably can't be trusted in society with anything else.
Either keep 'em in jail, deport 'em, kill 'em or let 'em be full citizens.

 

[Drjones]

So you don't trust a violent felon with a .22 rifle, but you trust them to drive around schools in 2,000lb guided kill-death smashmobiles and the ingredients to make explosives?

Agreed. Its really quite simple: if a man isn't trustworthy enough to own a gun, he's not trustworthy enough to be walking the streets at all.

You really want an ex-child molester walking around with all the equipment with which to commit more crimes?

I don't care if he's got a friggin' mini-gun or a pencil; I don't want him on the streets period!

 

[Edward429451]

Given the rate of recividism (sp?) among predicate violent felons, I'm sure you'll sleep well at night.

Recidivism. If they did a three strikes and you're out for good thing, violent crime would go down, guns in society or not. I read somewhere that like 85 or 90% of all violent crime is perpetated by 6% of violent repeat offenders.

Barring that, I'm more than happy that violent felons with firearms live in your neighborhood.

Mike, what a terrible thing to say. Have a bad day? It saddens me that violent felons may live in your neighbrohood. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. <shrug>

 

[GregoryTech]

Released "Violent Felons" with guns are not a problem unless they intend to continue violent criminal behavior. If a released "Violent Felon" plans to continue a life of violent criminal behavior, he'll need a weapon and will find one regardless of the law. As with any gun control law, the only released "Violent Felons" who will be disarmed by a law, are those willing to follow the law. And those are probably not the "Violent Felons" you have to worry most about.

 

[Smoke]

I was forced to agree that people convicted of commiting a violent felony should not be able to own guns once they are released from prison

I don't have a problem with this....

Trouble is, trying to enforce that one law would mean all of the paperwork, signatures, background checks and red tape we have now. I'm willing to trade some small possibility that a few tough guys might waltz into Wal-Mart and buy a gun at retail for the liberty of doing so myself - untraced, untracked, untaxed and unquestioned.

Not true! You don't try to keep felons from buying weapons. You just bust them when they get caught with them. It should not now, nor ever fall to the retailer to verify who they sell something to. By doing it in this manner you also grant the released felon with a responsibility to do what is right and the means to take away his freedom again if he makes the wrong choice.

Does someone who was convicted of a violent felony loose their right to freedom of speech and religion? What about their right not to be unreasonably searched and their property seized? Why do we, who are supposed to be advocates of people's natural rights, then feel so comfortable stripping someone of the RKBA?

Rights are granted to all people, but can be taken away if someone proves themselves too stupid to be allowed certain rights. If you committ a VIOLENT felony I have no problem taken away your other rights too, search & seizure, free speech, etc. Yeah, I'm a hateass

 

[GregoryTech]

Not true! You don't try to keep felons from buying weapons. You just bust them when they get caught with them. It should not now, nor ever fall to the retailer to verify who they sell something to. By doing it in this manner you also grant the released felon with a responsibility to do what is right and the means to take away his freedom again if he makes the wrong choice.

This is almost fair.

But honestly, what difference does it make if a felon has a gun? If he is in a criminal act and gets caught with any weapon, then charge him appropriately (armed burglary, armed robbery, armed assault, etc). But if he is isn't, then why is possession of a gun so much more scary to you, than possession of a knife, car keys, matches and a lighter, etc? it's not having a weapon (of any kind) that counts, it's what he does with it that matters (saves his child's life... or robs a quickie mart) .

 

[Glock Glockler]

Rights are granted to all people, but can be taken away if someone proves themselves too stupid to be allowed certain rights. If you committ a VIOLENT felony I have no problem taken away your other rights too, search & seizure, free speech, etc. Yeah, I'm a hateass

Who grants those rights? Does society or whatever collective is in fashion this week grant them? C'mon, help me out here.

 

[Tamara]

The problem is figuring out a way to keep them out of their hands without inconveniencing non-criminals.

You or I should not be put out one whit in order to enforce punishment on someone else. Group punishment is for grade schools and boot camp.

 

[bogie]

The way I look at it, you do the crime, you do the time. And with that time comes a lifelong loss of privileges - the loss of the right to vote, etc...

Should a guy do something stupid when he's young, he can move later to have his record cleared. But up until that, I'd like to see folks with driver's licenses/state issued ids punched with "felon" on 'em. Yeah, you can argue that even having to show ID to purchase a firearm is a bad thing, but hey - let's use common sense. There are some folks who we don't want to have guns - yeah, they'll get 'em anyway, but hey, let's make it a little harder for 'em to get 'em.

In my humble opinion, Joe Blow oughta be able to walk into Bubba's Guns, plunk down his state-issued ID and the credit card/foldin' money of his choice, and walk out with whatever boomstick he wants. But if Bill Crook tries it, he gets shown the door.

 

[GregoryTech]

The way I look at it, you do the crime, you do the time. And with that time comes a lifelong loss of privileges - the loss of the right to vote, etc...

The loss of the right to free speach, the loss of the right to not incriminate ones self, the loss of the right to be secure in one's home, the loss of the right to practice one's own religion? Or is it just voting and 2nd amendment rights in your point of view?

...There are some folks who we don't want to have guns - yeah, they'll get 'em anyway, but hey, let's make it a little harder for 'em to get 'em.

Problem is it makes it harder for YOU to get them too. Like any gun control, the net result is the opposite. Honest law abiding citizens are disarmed while criminals are not.

In my humble opinion, Joe Blow oughta be able to walk into Bubba's Guns, plunk down his state-issued ID and the credit card/foldin' money of his choice, and walk out with whatever boomstick he wants. But if Bill Crook tries it, he gets shown the door.

Yes, in a perfect world. In a more perfect world nobody would even need guns. But what you propose isn't possible, and you only end up keeping guns out of the hands of the people that are not inclined to do harm with them.

 

[Gordon Fink]

… I just don’t think we should make it easier for them.

Are you kidding?

It’s easier to buy a gun illegally. No age limit. No permit. No paperwork. No identification. No fingerprints. No background check. No monthly limit. No safe-handling demonstration. No mandatory lock. No waiting period. Hell! There’s not even any sales tax.

~G. Fink