should ex felons be restricted
- Thread starter cheese_head
- Start date
- Status
"course, while they were doing drugs they...
beat someone into hospitalization, ignored the word no, stole 7000 from their work to cover their gambling debts, decided it was quicker to sell drugs to school kids than go to college" or sold their child into protitution, stole from their family, seriously injuried someone, jumped bond, beat-up their girlfriend, tried to murder a witness, repeated DUI offenses, illegal CCW, and selling stolen property. This is the typical history of an inmate but if it serves a "cause" (legalize drugs) lets just cite that he was sent to prison for using drugs. :banghead:
beat someone into hospitalization, ignored the word no, stole 7000 from their work to cover their gambling debts, decided it was quicker to sell drugs to school kids than go to college" or sold their child into protitution, stole from their family, seriously injuried someone, jumped bond, beat-up their girlfriend, tried to murder a witness, repeated DUI offenses, illegal CCW, and selling stolen property. This is the typical history of an inmate but if it serves a "cause" (legalize drugs) lets just cite that he was sent to prison for using drugs. :banghead:
And a gun in the hands of a criminal means you have NO RIGHTS. What don't you understand?
Telewinz,
Sure, there is probably a certain percentage of people in prison now who would still be in prison without the war on drugs.
But when the federal prison system shows that 54.1% of inmates imprisoned for drug offenses?
Then throw them into jail for assault. What the heck does embezzlement for gambling have to do with the WOD? Throw them in jail and give them a big fine for selling to minors(same as with alchohol & cigs). Child Prostitution of their own child? Throw them in prison and toss the key. Let's see. Arrest for theft, another assault, fleeing before trial, assault, attempted murder, alchohol is legal if you're old enough(I'd have the offender spending time in jail), there is no such thing as "illegal CCW"(There is "illegal use of a gun").
If they actually get sent to this, while they'll go into the pile "imprisoned with drug offenses", they might not go into the pile "imprisoned on/for drug offenses", and definatly wouldn't go into the "imprisoned soley for drug offenses".
This site is for NY state, but it shows some points:
One in three (31.8%) of drug offenders sent to prison were first offenders with no prior felony convictions
89% of the repeat drug offenders were convicted of minor crimes (class C, D or E).
One in four incarcerated drug offenders was convicted of simply possessing drugs. The rest were convicted of possession with intent to sell, attempted sale or sales. Whether guilty of possession or sales-related offenses, most of the incarcerated offenders were low-level offenders involved with small amounts of drugs.
Three out of four (77.5%) drug offenders sent to prison have never been convicted of a violent felony
Data on incarcerated drug offenders nationwide recently published by the U.S. Department of Justice6 indicates similar pattern of nonviolent drug offenders: 76.4%.of drug offenders in state prisons in 1997 had no prior convictions for violent crimes; 32% of drug offenders had prior sentences limited to drug offenses and 17.4% were first offenders with no prior convictions for any kind of crime.
The earlier example, for the guy in a wheelchair who everybody agreed was forging the prescriptions for his own use? Remember, he was charged with intent to distribute/sell. It apparently took three trials to find a guilty verdict. Remember the who suppression of the idea of jury nullification? They finally found a jury that said "Well, here's the facts, we disagree with the law, but we have to find him guilty anyways". The whole problem was caused by the DEA because he couldn't get a pain doctor because the feds were going after them (oh my god, people in persistant extreme pain might get addicted to pain-killers!).
Sure, there is probably a certain percentage of people in prison now who would still be in prison without the war on drugs.
But when the federal prison system shows that 54.1% of inmates imprisoned for drug offenses?
telewinz said:
Then throw them into jail for assault. What the heck does embezzlement for gambling have to do with the WOD? Throw them in jail and give them a big fine for selling to minors(same as with alchohol & cigs). Child Prostitution of their own child? Throw them in prison and toss the key. Let's see. Arrest for theft, another assault, fleeing before trial, assault, attempted murder, alchohol is legal if you're old enough(I'd have the offender spending time in jail), there is no such thing as "illegal CCW"(There is "illegal use of a gun").
If they actually get sent to this, while they'll go into the pile "imprisoned with drug offenses", they might not go into the pile "imprisoned on/for drug offenses", and definatly wouldn't go into the "imprisoned soley for drug offenses".
This site is for NY state, but it shows some points:
One in three (31.8%) of drug offenders sent to prison were first offenders with no prior felony convictions
89% of the repeat drug offenders were convicted of minor crimes (class C, D or E).
One in four incarcerated drug offenders was convicted of simply possessing drugs. The rest were convicted of possession with intent to sell, attempted sale or sales. Whether guilty of possession or sales-related offenses, most of the incarcerated offenders were low-level offenders involved with small amounts of drugs.
Three out of four (77.5%) drug offenders sent to prison have never been convicted of a violent felony
Data on incarcerated drug offenders nationwide recently published by the U.S. Department of Justice6 indicates similar pattern of nonviolent drug offenders: 76.4%.of drug offenders in state prisons in 1997 had no prior convictions for violent crimes; 32% of drug offenders had prior sentences limited to drug offenses and 17.4% were first offenders with no prior convictions for any kind of crime.
The earlier example, for the guy in a wheelchair who everybody agreed was forging the prescriptions for his own use? Remember, he was charged with intent to distribute/sell. It apparently took three trials to find a guilty verdict. Remember the who suppression of the idea of jury nullification? They finally found a jury that said "Well, here's the facts, we disagree with the law, but we have to find him guilty anyways". The whole problem was caused by the DEA because he couldn't get a pain doctor because the feds were going after them (oh my god, people in persistant extreme pain might get addicted to pain-killers!).
How much did a shot of whiskey
cost during the prohibition and adjusted to inflation how much does it cost today.
The war on drugs inflates the profits on drugs. If the drug addicts didnt do any crimes other than use drugs would that be acceptable? Say Joe cokesnorter,worked and payed taxes and using his own money bought drugs
on a regulated market where his 200 dollar a week habit costs only 5 bucks would that be ok?
cost during the prohibition and adjusted to inflation how much does it cost today.
The war on drugs inflates the profits on drugs. If the drug addicts didnt do any crimes other than use drugs would that be acceptable? Say Joe cokesnorter,worked and payed taxes and using his own money bought drugs
on a regulated market where his 200 dollar a week habit costs only 5 bucks would that be ok?
GAMALOT
Member
Jo Cokesnorter gets his drugs from an elaborate system of Law Breakers.
Coke, I think comes from Puru, it is smuggled out and then into the US.
None of us have a clue as to how many people died in this beginning process.
You are all attempting to make the end user seem like NOT A BAD GUY.
The truth is Drugs are illegal weather it be a joint or syringe the mechanism of totally bad people must still be in place to supply the end user.
I can't say I agree with all the drug laws but I do know the above is as real as real gets so quit your bitching and look at the total picture.
The guy smoking the occasional joint may well be a nice guy but he is supporting a network of scum bags along the way who would cut all of our throats for the profits they make.
Poppy's are grown in Afganistan and the profits go to terrorists who are killing our soldiers and funding the people who destroyed the twin towers and many thousands of innocent lives.
The next time you light up, think about the path of destruction left behind and I don't mean the guy sitting in his living room watching the NFL and starting his own business being Mr. Good Guy.
Go to Kentucky and take a walk in the woods. If you happen to end up walking into a POT field protected by a bunch of druggies, you might get the picture.
Coke, I think comes from Puru, it is smuggled out and then into the US.
None of us have a clue as to how many people died in this beginning process.
You are all attempting to make the end user seem like NOT A BAD GUY.
The truth is Drugs are illegal weather it be a joint or syringe the mechanism of totally bad people must still be in place to supply the end user.
I can't say I agree with all the drug laws but I do know the above is as real as real gets so quit your bitching and look at the total picture.
The guy smoking the occasional joint may well be a nice guy but he is supporting a network of scum bags along the way who would cut all of our throats for the profits they make.
Poppy's are grown in Afganistan and the profits go to terrorists who are killing our soldiers and funding the people who destroyed the twin towers and many thousands of innocent lives.
The next time you light up, think about the path of destruction left behind and I don't mean the guy sitting in his living room watching the NFL and starting his own business being Mr. Good Guy.
Go to Kentucky and take a walk in the woods. If you happen to end up walking into a POT field protected by a bunch of druggies, you might get the picture.
thread spinning degenerating..cant stop must post......
ok so your saying
if it was legal.
then there wouldnt be any bad guys producing the stuff cause it is legal and there is not enough profit in it? ergo. If it is legal any one can grow it in there house. If it is legal. You can buy it from the drug store just like oxycontin (ask Rush limbaugh). Imagine if those scum bags like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were around today. They would be in the federal penetentiary for growing marijauna.
I see your point though. 22 years ago when i was smoking pot i was supporting a scumbag network of my buddy who grew it on his pig farm. Sometimes i think the biggest resistance to ending the war on drugs is the loss of jobs in the corrections institutions that would result from it.
The opium grown in afghanistan actually goes to warlords. They are domestic terrorsits that terrorise other warlords and there own people. They dont export the terror. Under the taliban opium production was very much depressed. We even gave them money and thanked them for there anti drug efforts
the true cost of cocaine
http://www.davidrhenderson.com/foreign_policy/foreign_policy01nov07.htm
The raw cocaine price in Colombia is only about 1 percent of its street price in the United States, because of the risk premium added on to prices at each stage of the distribution
were talking about a dollar a gram i really dont think joe junkie is going to rob sister mary innocent for a dollars worth of cocaine he might be a nuisance pan handling though
ok so your saying
if it was legal.
then there wouldnt be any bad guys producing the stuff cause it is legal and there is not enough profit in it? ergo. If it is legal any one can grow it in there house. If it is legal. You can buy it from the drug store just like oxycontin (ask Rush limbaugh). Imagine if those scum bags like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were around today. They would be in the federal penetentiary for growing marijauna.
I see your point though. 22 years ago when i was smoking pot i was supporting a scumbag network of my buddy who grew it on his pig farm. Sometimes i think the biggest resistance to ending the war on drugs is the loss of jobs in the corrections institutions that would result from it.
The opium grown in afghanistan actually goes to warlords. They are domestic terrorsits that terrorise other warlords and there own people. They dont export the terror. Under the taliban opium production was very much depressed. We even gave them money and thanked them for there anti drug efforts
the true cost of cocaine
http://www.davidrhenderson.com/foreign_policy/foreign_policy01nov07.htm
The raw cocaine price in Colombia is only about 1 percent of its street price in the United States, because of the risk premium added on to prices at each stage of the distribution
were talking about a dollar a gram i really dont think joe junkie is going to rob sister mary innocent for a dollars worth of cocaine he might be a nuisance pan handling though
GAMALOT
Member
Apparently, you are better informed on the drug culture then I.
Missing the point in that your Buddies farm should be called a Pot farm with pigs since the monetary gains are much higher for americas #1 CASH CROP.
I have enjoyed the bantar but the "spin stops here"!
Missing the point in that your Buddies farm should be called a Pot farm with pigs since the monetary gains are much higher for americas #1 CASH CROP.
I have enjoyed the bantar but the "spin stops here"!
Anyway, on the topic:
The very question seems bizarre. Whether someone served his sentence for a felony or not, people tend to be consistent in their behavior. Someone who is irresponsible enough to commit, get caught and be punished for a felony sure isnt responsible enough to own a firearm. While there might be individual exceptions, we don't make rules based on exceptions but on the majority. The majority of felons are recidivists--they commit crimes over and over.
It is similar to someone filing bankruptcy. Would you lend that person money again? No. But if someone re-established themselves as responsible over a number of years then it is a much smaller risk. Same here. There are certainly mechanisms in place to allow people who have demonstrated responsibility to petition for restoration.
The very question seems bizarre. Whether someone served his sentence for a felony or not, people tend to be consistent in their behavior. Someone who is irresponsible enough to commit, get caught and be punished for a felony sure isnt responsible enough to own a firearm. While there might be individual exceptions, we don't make rules based on exceptions but on the majority. The majority of felons are recidivists--they commit crimes over and over.
It is similar to someone filing bankruptcy. Would you lend that person money again? No. But if someone re-established themselves as responsible over a number of years then it is a much smaller risk. Same here. There are certainly mechanisms in place to allow people who have demonstrated responsibility to petition for restoration.
Fletchette
Member
Rabbi and Gamalot...
repeat of earlier post:
The part where actions that do not hurt anybody is considered a "crime". I am not argueing that these people broke the law. I am arguing that these laws are insane. Just because a law is passed does not mean that it is just...It was once a law that you could own slaves.
The guy I cited in the Fox article was in a wheel chair due to a previous auto injury. I seriouly doubt that he assaulted, raped or did anyone harm like you suggested. He simply forged one of his own prescriptions and got it filled by his pharmacy. He did not sell his drugs - he swallowed them.
Now he is in prison for 25 years without parole. Do you really think that this law is just?!?
:banghead:
----------------end of repeat
Radical idea: prosecute criminals for tha actual crime they commit (assault, pimping, raping etc.) rather than use trumped-up bogus charges that end up ensaring innocent people.
repeat of earlier post:
The part where actions that do not hurt anybody is considered a "crime". I am not argueing that these people broke the law. I am arguing that these laws are insane. Just because a law is passed does not mean that it is just...It was once a law that you could own slaves.
The guy I cited in the Fox article was in a wheel chair due to a previous auto injury. I seriouly doubt that he assaulted, raped or did anyone harm like you suggested. He simply forged one of his own prescriptions and got it filled by his pharmacy. He did not sell his drugs - he swallowed them.
Now he is in prison for 25 years without parole. Do you really think that this law is just?!?
:banghead:
----------------end of repeat
Radical idea: prosecute criminals for tha actual crime they commit (assault, pimping, raping etc.) rather than use trumped-up bogus charges that end up ensaring innocent people.
Fletchette
Member
The ability to borrow money is a privilage. Keeping and bearing arms is a right.
in bankruptcy
Post bankruptcy loan offers are usually higher after 2 years. Banks know if you file bankruptcy you cannot do it for 7 more years.
As far as petitioning for restoration of rights. Thats a non starter. Many states require a govenors pardon. We all know thats not going to happen.
Federal relief from disabilities is non funded that is not going to happen. I just dont see the point of Martha Stewart being denied RKBA because of a felony conviction. Maybe if Rush gets nailed for a felony people will see things differently.
The reason i even started this thread was a good freind of mine cannot go hunting. In 1989 he commited a non violent Drug felony. No guns were ever involved. He was convicted party to a crime of delivery of cocaine. He wasnt a saint thats for sure. But he owns a thriving business. Now he cant hunt. Thats not fair. Who here would say he is not a positive member of the community? Are we supposed to burn a mark in his forehead cause of his stupidity almost a couple of decades ago. The guy didnt even go to prison he got 3 years probation. I dont think thats fair.
Post bankruptcy loan offers are usually higher after 2 years. Banks know if you file bankruptcy you cannot do it for 7 more years.
As far as petitioning for restoration of rights. Thats a non starter. Many states require a govenors pardon. We all know thats not going to happen.
Federal relief from disabilities is non funded that is not going to happen. I just dont see the point of Martha Stewart being denied RKBA because of a felony conviction. Maybe if Rush gets nailed for a felony people will see things differently.
The reason i even started this thread was a good freind of mine cannot go hunting. In 1989 he commited a non violent Drug felony. No guns were ever involved. He was convicted party to a crime of delivery of cocaine. He wasnt a saint thats for sure. But he owns a thriving business. Now he cant hunt. Thats not fair. Who here would say he is not a positive member of the community? Are we supposed to burn a mark in his forehead cause of his stupidity almost a couple of decades ago. The guy didnt even go to prison he got 3 years probation. I dont think thats fair.
Can you name a felony that doesn't hurt someone? Sure, there might be laws on the books that somehow end up with seemingly unjust consequences. But as I posted, we don't make laws based on exceptions but on the general rule.
That's a distinction without a difference for this discussion. The point is that people's past behavior is generally a good indication of their future actions. Not 100% certainly but I don't know a better predictor. I would think anyone would want to err on the side of caution after weighing the benefits of allowing felons to own arms versus the liabilities.
Glock Glockler
Member
The guy smoking the occasional joint may well be a nice guy but he is supporting a network of scum bags along the way who would cut all of our throats for the profits they make.
I agree, let's legalize the stuff so we put these modern day Al Capones out of business.
Can you name a felony that doesn't hurt someone?
Sure, how about the just about everything the BATF enforces.
That's a distinction without a difference for this discussion. The point is that people's past behavior is generally a good indication of their future actions. Not 100% certainly but I don't know a better predictor. I would think anyone would want to err on the side of caution after weighing the benefits of allowing felons to own arms versus the liabilities.
Either people have rights or they do not. You will have a govt that respects and protects those rights or you do not. Do ex-felons have a right to freedom of religion, what about free speech, what about the right to be free of unjust searches? By your denying them RKBA you are essentially saying that they do not have the right to protect their life.
While there might be individual exceptions, we don't make rules based on exceptions but on the majority
Wrong, if that law prevents someone who isn't currently a criminal from protecting himself or his family it is unjust and ought to be removed. We base our system of law on individual rights not 'majority rights', whatever that is.
I agree, let's legalize the stuff so we put these modern day Al Capones out of business.
Can you name a felony that doesn't hurt someone?
Sure, how about the just about everything the BATF enforces.
That's a distinction without a difference for this discussion. The point is that people's past behavior is generally a good indication of their future actions. Not 100% certainly but I don't know a better predictor. I would think anyone would want to err on the side of caution after weighing the benefits of allowing felons to own arms versus the liabilities.
Either people have rights or they do not. You will have a govt that respects and protects those rights or you do not. Do ex-felons have a right to freedom of religion, what about free speech, what about the right to be free of unjust searches? By your denying them RKBA you are essentially saying that they do not have the right to protect their life.
While there might be individual exceptions, we don't make rules based on exceptions but on the majority
Wrong, if that law prevents someone who isn't currently a criminal from protecting himself or his family it is unjust and ought to be removed. We base our system of law on individual rights not 'majority rights', whatever that is.
Chuck Jennings
Member
A lie on a federal form.
Fletchette
Member
Hmm. I am beginning to think that you aren't reading my replies, but here it goes for a third time:
So, in answer to your question:
Yes. Read above. The man forged his doctor's signature on his own prescription and bought (not stole) drugs at his pharmacy for his own consumption. This "felony" did not hurt anyone.
So, in answer to your question:
Yes. Read above. The man forged his doctor's signature on his own prescription and bought (not stole) drugs at his pharmacy for his own consumption. This "felony" did not hurt anyone.
The way that I am reading all the replies, even THR is falling into groups:
Group 1, usually the LEO's and Fed LEO's on the board: The law is the supreme law of the land, not anything else. If you break "our" laws then you should be treated like dog poop.
Group 2: Depends on what law was broken and how constitutional it was. That if a law is unconstitutional then it is null and void but we do have exceptions to the rule and the exceptions are what we say they are.
Group 3: We are human, we make mistakes, many times those mistakes are against a law that shouldn't be due to it was not a law back when our forefathers wrote the constitution or the BoR's when they had the same "problem" in those days so if they had wanted it to be against the law they would have said so and thus written it into the documents that make up America.
If a person or persons can't be trusted on the streets then they should not be on the streets. Any "freeman" (defined as anyone on the streets) have (not should have, may have, etc..) their Rights as outlined in the BoR's and the Constitution. If you don't like that then either move to Canada or ensure these scumbags aren't out on the street.
If you wish to disarm a portion of the population due to mistakes then ensure that they stay behind bars, or better yet, are hanged or fried. If you think that they should be out in the streets then they have all their Rights, no matter the law. Those LEO's and Fed LEO's that like to get their rocks off by harressing these folks once they are out are out of line and it is their oath to allow these people to either hang themselves and go to jail forever (or die) or to allow them to be a part of America.
This elitist BS that I see and read make what I believe even more logical. If a person can't be trusted to be on the streets then why the hell are they on the streets? If they are let out then why can't they be trusted?
You start taking away the peoples Rights then you get nothing but more problems. You allow them to pay for their mistakes and allow them to be free then they should be free. No inbetween, no second, third class citizens, no making the peoples life even more harder just because of their past.
I know that many here will call me "uninformed", "stupid", "???????", and "one that won't confirm to what we wish". This is what I believe. I've met many a "criminal" that I would gladly be by my side if the SHTF. I've met many a "law abiding" that I have had second thoughts about. I've met many here that I would be scared to death to meet in RL due to the fact that I may be arressed on some "charge" and put away in a fed. prison.
The way I see it is this. If a criminal does the time and comes out and does nothing more to victimize anyone else then okay. If they do, the law should be as it was, everyone has a gun and the criminal won't have to worry about doing time, just what he or she is going to say to God when the victim sends the criminal to Him.
Wayne
Group 1, usually the LEO's and Fed LEO's on the board: The law is the supreme law of the land, not anything else. If you break "our" laws then you should be treated like dog poop.
Group 2: Depends on what law was broken and how constitutional it was. That if a law is unconstitutional then it is null and void but we do have exceptions to the rule and the exceptions are what we say they are.
Group 3: We are human, we make mistakes, many times those mistakes are against a law that shouldn't be due to it was not a law back when our forefathers wrote the constitution or the BoR's when they had the same "problem" in those days so if they had wanted it to be against the law they would have said so and thus written it into the documents that make up America.
If a person or persons can't be trusted on the streets then they should not be on the streets. Any "freeman" (defined as anyone on the streets) have (not should have, may have, etc..) their Rights as outlined in the BoR's and the Constitution. If you don't like that then either move to Canada or ensure these scumbags aren't out on the street.
If you wish to disarm a portion of the population due to mistakes then ensure that they stay behind bars, or better yet, are hanged or fried. If you think that they should be out in the streets then they have all their Rights, no matter the law. Those LEO's and Fed LEO's that like to get their rocks off by harressing these folks once they are out are out of line and it is their oath to allow these people to either hang themselves and go to jail forever (or die) or to allow them to be a part of America.
This elitist BS that I see and read make what I believe even more logical. If a person can't be trusted to be on the streets then why the hell are they on the streets? If they are let out then why can't they be trusted?
You start taking away the peoples Rights then you get nothing but more problems. You allow them to pay for their mistakes and allow them to be free then they should be free. No inbetween, no second, third class citizens, no making the peoples life even more harder just because of their past.
I know that many here will call me "uninformed", "stupid", "???????", and "one that won't confirm to what we wish". This is what I believe. I've met many a "criminal" that I would gladly be by my side if the SHTF. I've met many a "law abiding" that I have had second thoughts about. I've met many here that I would be scared to death to meet in RL due to the fact that I may be arressed on some "charge" and put away in a fed. prison.
The way I see it is this. If a criminal does the time and comes out and does nothing more to victimize anyone else then okay. If they do, the law should be as it was, everyone has a gun and the criminal won't have to worry about doing time, just what he or she is going to say to God when the victim sends the criminal to Him.
Wayne
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Me, me, me, Wayne! Don't forget me!
I'm the guy who said, "Case by case basis."
, Art
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Very interesting read and opinions. For me, as I learned it, being dumb enough to commit a felony and subsequently be caught means a couple of things. First, it means you aren't bright enough to not get caught. Second, by committing the felony and being convicted, you basically suffer a vote of no confidence. In other words, by committing the felony, you have shown society that you are unwilling to play be the rules of the society and are more than willing to violate the rights of others at your own personal gain. Punishment then includes time in jail/prison (most times) and a loss of some key rights. Felons lose the rights to decide in elections or own guns because of their demonstrated disregard for the rights of others.
If you weren't willing to give up the rights, you should not have committed the crime and been stupid enough to get caught.
If you weren't willing to give up the rights, you should not have committed the crime and been stupid enough to get caught.
This isn't a question of justice or fairness. It is a question of common sense. A person with a demonstrated history of life mismanagement (i.e. felony conviction) simply shouldnt be trusted with a gun. The risks are too great to everyone else. A person convicted of financial fraud shouldnt be hired as comptroller of a company. This is just common sense. The argument about "if he cant do this then he shouldnt be allowed to do that" is just a straw argument. You could use that argument to prove anything.
As far as the guy in the wheelchair: if he had a legitimate need for drugs he should have gone to his doctor. The fact that he didnt doesnt speak well of the situation.
As for lying on a Federal form: OK, Chuck, I agree. Now I expect you to get out and lobby your congressmen for restoration of rights for anyone convicted of lying on a FNMA 1003 (mortgage application). We're right behind you.
As far as the guy in the wheelchair: if he had a legitimate need for drugs he should have gone to his doctor. The fact that he didnt doesnt speak well of the situation.
As for lying on a Federal form: OK, Chuck, I agree. Now I expect you to get out and lobby your congressmen for restoration of rights for anyone convicted of lying on a FNMA 1003 (mortgage application). We're right behind you.
How about a time based system
Like you lose your rights for 10 years.
after 10 years if you haven't commmited any crimes or misdeameanors would that be ok? That actually seems right by me. Lifetime ban no way. When i think of it there are people who I dont want to have rights. Pedophiles i dont want them running day care. Actually as far as pedophiles concerned i dont want them out of prison EVER. Also they need to rewrite the sex offender statutes. a 18 year old going out with a 16 year old should not be a sex offender crime. And a 35 year old molesting a 14 year old should never ever see the light of day. Im talking solitary confinement for life.
Like you lose your rights for 10 years.
after 10 years if you haven't commmited any crimes or misdeameanors would that be ok? That actually seems right by me. Lifetime ban no way. When i think of it there are people who I dont want to have rights. Pedophiles i dont want them running day care. Actually as far as pedophiles concerned i dont want them out of prison EVER. Also they need to rewrite the sex offender statutes. a 18 year old going out with a 16 year old should not be a sex offender crime. And a 35 year old molesting a 14 year old should never ever see the light of day. Im talking solitary confinement for life.
Glock Glockler
Member
Felons lose the rights to decide in elections or own guns because of their demonstrated disregard for the rights of others.
They do lose those rights when they are in jail, but if they are released it is essentially a de facto aknowledgement that their debt to society is paid, and if it is not paid they should still be in jail?
As I said before, does a person released from jail have the right to free religion?
Do they have the right to free speech?
Do they have the right to defend themselves from violent attack? Your denying them RKBA is essentially saying that they dont have the right to be free of aggression.
This isn't a question of justice or fairness. It is a question of common sense.
You should campaign for the Brady Bunch with "common sense" gun control being stylish and all. Hate to say it but you basically just shot any credibility of yours to hell by trying to dismiss justice and fairness as being irrelevant.
A person with a demonstrated history of life mismanagement (i.e. felony conviction) simply shouldnt be trusted with a gun
The past doesn not equal the future, just because someone has done bad things does not mean they automatically will do so again. I guess no one ever straightens themselves out in your world but you are essentially disregarding the idea of innocence until proven guilty.
As far as the guy in the wheelchair: if he had a legitimate need for drugs he should have gone to his doctor. The fact that he didnt doesnt speak well of the situation.
Uh, maybe he was under the false impression that his body belonged to him and he shouldnt have to ask anyone for permission. Even if he went to his doctor the best he would have done is written a prescription that is supposed to act just like marijuana except that it actually isnt as effective as the real thing and it costs exponentially more.
They do lose those rights when they are in jail, but if they are released it is essentially a de facto aknowledgement that their debt to society is paid, and if it is not paid they should still be in jail?
As I said before, does a person released from jail have the right to free religion?
Do they have the right to free speech?
Do they have the right to defend themselves from violent attack? Your denying them RKBA is essentially saying that they dont have the right to be free of aggression.
This isn't a question of justice or fairness. It is a question of common sense.
You should campaign for the Brady Bunch with "common sense" gun control being stylish and all. Hate to say it but you basically just shot any credibility of yours to hell by trying to dismiss justice and fairness as being irrelevant.
A person with a demonstrated history of life mismanagement (i.e. felony conviction) simply shouldnt be trusted with a gun
The past doesn not equal the future, just because someone has done bad things does not mean they automatically will do so again. I guess no one ever straightens themselves out in your world but you are essentially disregarding the idea of innocence until proven guilty.
As far as the guy in the wheelchair: if he had a legitimate need for drugs he should have gone to his doctor. The fact that he didnt doesnt speak well of the situation.
Uh, maybe he was under the false impression that his body belonged to him and he shouldnt have to ask anyone for permission. Even if he went to his doctor the best he would have done is written a prescription that is supposed to act just like marijuana except that it actually isnt as effective as the real thing and it costs exponentially more.
Chris Rhines
Member
If you claim to own your own body, then it is your business what chemicals you put into it. No one elses.
Anyone who claims to be pro-gun, but supports prohibition, is a D-flawless, blue rare hypocrite.
- Chris
Anyone who claims to be pro-gun, but supports prohibition, is a D-flawless, blue rare hypocrite.
- Chris
Their release is not an aknowledgement of paying a debt to society. It is an aknowledgement that their term of incarceration is over. They can suffer legal disability for long after that in other ways, e.g. loss of voting privelage and rights to gun ownership.
Maybe. If their conviction involved revealing some information they might still be under orders not to speak about it.
That is absolute and unadulterated garbage. If you take someone's driver's license are denying the right to go places? If you take someone's right to vote are you denying them the ability to express political opinions? Someone without rights to gun ownership can lawfully defend himself in any way he wants provided he doesnt own a gun in the process.
You just shot your credibility of sentience with this one. The point is the person WAS proven guilty. You're right--it does not automatically mean they will do it again. Yet the stats are they will, something like 80%. Want to take the chance? Not me, thanks. If your world ignores things like likelihood of an event and chances of anything occurring or re-occurring then you need a reality check because the rest of humanity operates on just those principles. Why do you think someone with multiple speeding tickets pays more for car insurance than someone with no speeding tickets?
Ignoring the obvious: his body belonged to him but the drugs belonged to the pharmacy and the right of prescribing them belonged to the doctor.
- Status
