Prohibited Persons Beliefs

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I see you're reduced to the usual cliches.

Frank, I wholly and honestly believe that protecting freedom itself is a much nobler cause than is protecting society from the inherent risk that some individuals will choose to abuse that very freedom.

This belief is not based on some trite phrase, or hackneyed expression. And as much as you may think the words themselves may be cliché, the underlying sentiment and belief is extremely important to me, as it is to many others.

Further, I hope you understand that your attempt to marginalize my beliefs in no way strengthens your position. It only makes you appear arrogant and condescending.
 
"I will also point out we got along just fine without the Gun Control Act of 1968, for a hundred and ninety eight years. Perhaps, its time to do away with both."

Good luck with that. The platform "Nobody should be prohibited from owning a gun! Guns for felons!" is fairly small and I doubt any congressman/senator (regardless what party) would stand behind that :banghead:

of all the issues this country faces - the legal right of convicted felons to have guns is probably item #132,596 ... ranked by urgency/importance
 
"Frank, I wholly and honestly believe that protecting freedom itself is a much nobler cause than is protecting society from the inherent risk that some individuals will choose to abuse that very freedom."

the problem is: convicted felons have ALREADY shown that they chose to abuse that very freedom. That's the exact reason why they are in the "prohibited person" category.

They violated the freedom, had their day in court and got convicted in the justice system.

The discussion of what is/should be a felony is much, much broader than the "prohibited persons - gun discussion" - and certainly such a discussion can be held. To make it easier to understand: IF you are convicted of a felony... the thing with "not being able to own guns" is seriously the least of your concerns... how about: prison time, losing your job, not being able to find a job in the future, not being able to rent apartments with many apartment companies, social stigma and and and.... :rolleyes:
 
If a person is stable enough to mingle with society they should have the right to own a firearm. If not then they should be in prison. There shouldn't be any prohibited persons list crap.
 
All that is proven when someone is incarcerated is that they are capable of making "bad choices". The degree of which this stretches is proportional to the crime and the individual.
You would need every state to have a system of reviewing every single case in order to ascertain weather the ex-con has truly changed the way they process things, or not. this would require a tremendous amount of money and time to accomplish, thus the way it is now implemented will not change.
As long as the Govt has anything to say about this subject, it will never allow any person or group to interfere with the way it handles these types of situations. We have had this conversation at length on several prior occasions. it can go on for weeks and end up where it started.
There is no answer that can be implemented by us or anyone else, we are under attack now, and our focus needs to be at the task at hand,
When a pro gun cabinet gets in power perhaps this can be discussed, but for now, "IMO" it's really a circle jerk.
 
Committing a crime shows a flaw in one's character. One has demonstrated, by committing a crime, a reason to question his integrity, honesty, judgment, impulse control, sense of responsibility and/or trustworthiness.

Spoken like a prosecutor. I disagree on principle, the principle that for these statements to be true, the law one breaks to become a criminal must be a just law, and the one who breaks it must be doing so without any real and earnest belief that his or her action is required in spite of the law. People of good character have broken laws since the beginning of civilization, and they've had good reasons for doing so. I can list a few if you like: Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Mason...they broke gobs of laws and became criminals when they decided to stage a revolution against King George. Was their character flawed? Were they demonstrating a lack of impulse control or untrustworthiness? If they were, we'd better see if we can get Queen Elizabeth to take us back under her wing.

Such statements are a gross over simplification of what it means to be human and a citizen of the Earth. Blind obedience to law is nothing but submission; there are times when a healthy dose of disobedience--yes, even criminal disobedience--is the only way to get things on the right track.
 
beatledog7 said:
...Washington, Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Mason...they broke gobs of laws and became criminals when they decided to stage a revolution against King George...
But if we had lost, they would have paid the price and history would not necessarily have treated them kindly.

It may well be that more than one guy in jail for robbing a convenience story likes to think of himself as a "political prisoner." He was, after all, merely trying to redistribute immorally concentrated wealth.

You might want to agree with him. I will not. As far as I'm concerned, he's just a cheap crook.
 
But if we had lost, they would have paid the price and history would not necessarily have treated them kindly.

So, whether one is a criminal is outcome based? They weren't criminals, and didn't suffer from flawed character, because their side won? That's an amazingly narrow perspective.

What if the guy who robs a 7-11 is a homeless father of four who's been turned away by the system and can't feed his children? You know, a Jean Valjean type of guy? I agree he has committed a crime, but is doing something desperate to put food in the mouths of his children demonstrating flawed character?
 
Put your trust in Odin and Freya, and all your questions about personal belief will be answered. Until the time of Ragnorak.
 
REALLY reaching now ... likely well past the point of persuading most of us to defend the rights of felons, domestic violence offenders, and adjudicated substance abusers. Thomas Jefferson and Jean Valjean? Really?
 
I hear different degrees of who should or shouldn't be barred from possessing a firearm. I have some sort of liberal views in this realm and would like to hear from others.

I personally don't think any non violent crimes should ever keep anyone from owning a gun. Also I feel like people who have served their time or finished their probation should have another chance.

Anybody have any personal preferences about current laws? Be sure to include a brief statement defending your stance.

I haven't read many responses.

I believe that if you are free in society, and are of the age of majority, you should not be barred access to arms. Plain and simple.

And no, committing a crime does not demonstrate a flaw in character based solely on the fact that a crime was committed. That's just asinine. Context, context, context. Totality of circumstances. I have committed a bunch of felonies in my life. Does that mean I have a flawed character? Not according to the police departments that I applied with, nor with the police department that hired me, despite my admitting openly to having committed felonies.

A lot of laws are just plain stupid, and that's a fact.

Edit: I knew at least one person would have beat me to it. :)

If a person is stable enough to mingle with society they should have the right to own a firearm. If not then they should be in prison. There shouldn't be any prohibited persons list crap.

This^
 
Farther, I could be a prohibited person had I been charged with and convicted of any of those felonies I committed. If that had happened, I would believe I got screwed over by unjust laws and a stupid, if not downright malevolent, government.

Some people would say "you should have thought of that before you committed a felony", to which I might say: No reasonable person would think that what I did was illegal, let alone a damn felony, because that law is just plain stupid...and hardly anybody knows about it.
 
TS, I think you missed the point; either that, or you don't want to acknowledge it.

I merely wanted to show that Frank's blanket statement that committing a crime indicates flawed character is not true. My use of a historical figure and a fictional character to show why does not mean I'm reaching.

History proves that doing something that's technically criminal is sometimes a really good idea.

Great fiction is often created to illustrate human reality. Hugo did just that.
 
beatledog7 said:
So, whether one is a criminal is outcome based? They weren't criminals, and didn't suffer from flawed character, because their side won? That's an amazingly narrow perspective...
It may be narrow, but it is also reality. And if one commits what could be considered criminal acts to serve what he believes to be a "higher purpose", he also needs to be prepared to suffer the consequences, include the obloquy of posterity, if things don't work out.

beatledog7 said:
...What if the guy who robs a 7-11 is a homeless father of four who's been turned away by the system and can't feed his children? You know, a Jean Valjean type of guy? I agree he has committed a crime, but is doing something desperate to put food in the mouths of his children demonstrating flawed character?

  1. Many people have throughout history managed to deal with grave situations and extreme temptations and needs without committing crimes.

  2. Extreme situations at the "edge" are also a reason for some elasticity in the system. That's a reason we have prosecutorial discretion. That's a reason a jury is sometimes referred to as the "conscience of the community."

  3. And most state laws include various provisions for restoration of rights. And I would agree that there does need to be a way for someone to accomplish such. But the burden of demonstrating good character should reasonably fall to the person who has been convicted of a serious crime.
 
^^^

good for you. so you committed "a bunch of felonies" but you did not get convicted. and that's the difference. there was not enough evidence or you were not considered guilty.

not sure why you would disclose that with a potential employer... but oh well...

do i need to feel bad for someone banned from having guns if they "committed and got convicted of a bunch of felonies"? no. and neither does the majority of americans.

regarding that phrase here: if someone cannot be trusted with a gun - they shouldn't be walking around in society and should be locked up.... how about people with alzheimers or severe genetic diseases like huntingtons... do we also need to lock them up? because they cannot be trusted with guns either.

it strucks me that quite a few folks in this thread had their fair share of interactions with the juridical system and "felonies"... maybe that's why they are so ticked off about the "prohibited person" category... :scrutiny:
 
not sure why you would disclose that with a potential employer... but oh well...
Because lying on your application, and in your polygraph, while attempting to be hired by an LEA for a sworn position is probably not the best thing to do.



do i need to feel bad for someone banned from having guns if they "committed and got convicted of a bunch of felonies"? no. and neither does the majority of americans.

Straw man. It only takes one, and nobody asked you to feel bad for anybody. All I said was that committing a crime, as a an an all inclusive broad-brush thing, doesn't necessary indicate a character flaw, or anything of that nature.

Lots of people accidentally and unknowingly commit crimes all the time, including felonies, without it being a result of a character flaw.

PS: By putting that in quotes, you are lying, because I never said the words you have in those quotes. I consider that to be a character flaw. ;)

regarding that phrase here: if someone cannot be trusted with a gun - they shouldn't be walking around in society and should be locked up.... how about people with alzheimers or severe genetic diseases like huntingtons... do we also need to lock them up? because they cannot be trusted with guns either.

Who decides what qualifies as "cannot be trusted with guns"?

it strucks me that quite a few folks in this thread had their fair share of interactions with the juridical system and "felonies"... maybe that's why they are so ticked off about the "prohibited person" category... :scrutiny:

As it pertains to me, I never had any involuntary interaction with any system, because nobody ever knew until I voluntarily informed them, after the fact, and I have suffered no negative results from any of them. So you can cross me off the list of people in this thread that you seem to be implying ulterior motives from.
 
Example: I was recently a college student here in GA. At the student orientation one individual asked the college employee what the policy was on pocket knives. The response was that the college followed state law, and she thought that meant a 4" maximum length.

Wellllll in actuality anything over 2" is a felony, even if you leave it in your car.

I can only imagine how many people committed felonies every single day, never knowing any better. And when I worked security for that university I witnessed a great many felonies being committed this way. I probably could have made a big deal out of any of them, and possibly there could have been some felony convictions as a result. But, IMO, I would have been the one with a character flaw, had I done that.
 
Good luck with that. The platform "Nobody should be prohibited from owning a gun! Guns for felons!" is fairly small and I doubt any congressman/senator (regardless what party) would stand behind that

The politicians went along with it for about 175 yrs.

it strucks me that quite a few folks in this thread had their fair share of interactions with the juridical system and "felonies"... maybe that's why they are so ticked off about the "prohibited person" category...

What if they are Scott? Are you trying to suppress their freedom of speech now? People have a right to oppose laws that are seen as unjust. At 18 yrs old you will be charged and convicted as an adult for committing a felony. However, you have to be 21 to buy alcohol because an18 yr old is not responsible enough. I see a big problem with that too. When I was 18 my judgment wasn't as sharp as it is now. Do you think any 18 yr olds have committed felonies and were barred from their rights over it for the entire adult life?
 
Last edited:
I would agree that not all "felonies" indicate a flaw in character. Much depends on who has what authority (or power) to define "felony".

I do think, however, that some felonies DO point to a prohibitory issue. Repeated acts of substance abuse and reckless endangerment of the public, for example. Acts of domestic violence resulting in real harm (punching, not yelling) seems like another one to me.

Some felonies point to worse character issues than others. I think if Martha Stewart asked meekly, I'd give her gun rights back. I wouldn't give a crack dealer Martha's turkey baster.

And yes, these are subjective moral judgements. If you're not comfortable with peoples' rights being left to someone's subjective moral judgment, the next thing is blanket prohibition that allows no room for subjective judgment.

Then again, people who have been convicted of crimes that show disregard for the rights of others WILL have an uphill battle getting others to care about their rights.
 
One of my relatives got caught driving drunk a few times, eventually he pleaded guilty to Felony DUI. He is now on the "prohibited persons" list.

Funny thing, though.... after completing the terms of his sentence, he was able to get his drivers license back. And of course, he can walk into a store and buy a case of beer any time he pleases.

Everybody feel safer now?
 
Again if you make bad choices on a regular basis, you are showing that you should not be in possession of a deadly weapon. If you were convicted of a felony , you lose the right to carry a deadly weapon, as you have lost the "public trust".
Many times people who get involved in criminal behavior, with the idea that it isn't hurting anyone, and therefore is ok. This usually backfires and someone does get hurt, it just goes to character and trust.
If you decide to break the law to the extent where it is punishable by the loss of your rights and knowingly do so, then you shouldn't be upset by the legal system telling you that you may no longer have that right. It shows a blatant disregard for the public safety, and an attitude that is at best selfish and indignant.
As far as people breaking laws and not knowing it, that is just an excuse to justify an individuals bad choices. Obviously going 5 miles over the speed limit, and signing bad checks are two different things, to try and justify one by using the other as an example is just childish, A person knows when they are committing a serious crime, and they know when it's just a non issue.
 
Again if you make bad choices on a regular basis, you are showing that you should not be in possession of a deadly weapon. If you were convicted of a felony , you lose the right to carry a deadly weapon, as you have lost the "public trust".
Many times people who get involved in criminal behavior, with the idea that it isn't hurting anyone, and therefore is ok. This usually backfires and someone does get hurt, it just goes to character and trust.
If you decide to break the law to the extent where it is punishable by the loss of your rights and knowingly do so, then you shouldn't be upset by the legal system telling you that you may no longer have that right. It shows a blatant disregard for the public safety, and an attitude that is at best selfish and indignant.
As far as people breaking laws and not knowing it, that is just an excuse to justify an individuals bad choices. Obviously going 5 miles over the speed limit, and signing bad checks are two different things, to try and justify one by using the other as an example is just childish, A person knows when they are committing a serious crime, and they know when it's just a non issue.

You could not be more incorrect if you tried.

Unfortunately I think that is just what you are going for with this post, though.

Edit: This of course varies from case to case, I'm sure that is how it goes some/much of the time for some/many people...but the absolute, blanket statement above is hogwash.
 
Last edited:
Again if you make bad choices on a regular basis, you are showing that you should not be in possession of a deadly weapon. If you were convicted of a felony , you lose the right to carry a deadly weapon, as you have lost the "public trust".
Many times people who get involved in criminal behavior, with the idea that it isn't hurting anyone, and therefore is ok. This usually backfires and someone does get hurt, it just goes to character and trust.
If you decide to break the law to the extent where it is punishable by the loss of your rights and knowingly do so, then you shouldn't be upset by the legal system telling you that you may no longer have that right. It shows a blatant disregard for the public safety, and an attitude that is at best selfish and indignant.
As far as people breaking laws and not knowing it, that is just an excuse to justify an individuals bad choices. Obviously going 5 miles over the speed limit, and signing bad checks are two different things, to try and justify one by using the other as an example is just childish, A person knows when they are committing a serious crime, and they know when it's just a non issue.
Today 07:52 PM

Personally, I can see that it might have been appropriate for my relative to lose his drivers license forever and be permanently banned from buying booze (even though I don't know how that would be enforced).

However, the legal system has shown us that driving and boozing must be "rights", while gun ownership is a mere privilege.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top