should ex felons be restricted

[Glock Glockler]

increase taxes a great deal and we will have all the welfare systems you desire to fix the problem(s)

I desire no govt. welfare system, and increasing taxes is a horrible idea.

BTW, the ACLU can go to hell for all I care.

 

[telewinz]

When we talk about the federal war on drugs, most people conjure up visions of sinister South American drug cartels or violent urban street gangs. The emerging face of the drug war, however, is not a gangster or a junkie: It’s your friendly personal physician in a white coat.

I desire no govt. welfare system, and increasing taxes is a horrible idea.

Then you have no workable solution...keep what we have.

most people conjure up visions of sinister South American drug cartels or violent urban street gangs. The emerging face of the drug war, however, is not a gangster or a junkie: It’s your friendly personal physician in a white coat.

Well, Dr. Paul (MD?) certainly does not speak for me, he isn't a "special interest" for doctors is he? My idea of drug offenders are those that have a previous history of crime(s) on file. The drug bust is just a tool to put them away.

We're talking about felons regaining a right to keep and bear arms. Doesn't the very fact that a felon would be willing to go through the thousands of dollars in court costs and time to regain their rights the legal and socially acceptable way count for something?

Maybe IF he got the money legally and isn't up to his old habits as 80%+ are.

 

[Glock Glockler]

Then you have no workable solution...keep what we have.

Wrong, I have plenty of workable solutions. Start with lowering taxes and getting rid of govt welfare programs.

 

[telewinz]

Wrong, I have plenty of workable solutions. Start with lowering taxes and getting rid of govt welfare programs.

So fix a problem(s) with less resources.

Then you have no workable solution...keep what we have.

Like I said before.

 

[Glock Glockler]

So fix a problem(s) with less resources

Has it ever occured to you that the govt welfare system IS the problem?

People on welfare are essentially rewarded for having more children that they cannot support, and the taxpayer must pick up the tab. We then have welfare mothers getting more money if the father is not at home, which creates a financial disincentive for a stable family, and the taxpayer must again pick up the tab.

So we then have an entire population of kids from broken families who have not been properly raised but they do know they get a check yet they do not work, and that is a disasterous precedent you set because they now think they are entitled to get money from others.

Combine that with the fact that the economy is much weaker because those that actually produce pay far more in taxes to support those that do not. That means there is far less economic opportunity for those that come from that broken welfare system to actually advance and earn their keep for a change.

 

[telewinz]

So we then have an entire population of kids from broken families who have not been properly raised but they do know they get a check yet they do not work, and that is a disasterous precedent you set because they now think they are entitled to get money from others.

First, we don't have "entire population" and we never did.

That means there is far less economic opportunity for those that come from that broken welfare system to actually advance and earn their keep for a change.

And a convict has even less opportunity. Thats why he is a convict and is much more likely to be a repeat offender. We understand the cause, whats the cheap solution thats more effective than what we have now?

 

[Fletchette]

Wow. A lot of back and forth here, some of it getting pretty 'spirited'. Nothing wrong with that, I suppose.

I want Telewinz to understand that he has my sympathies; the guy that did that to him should not be let out, which of course precludes him from having a gun.

However, I too have been on the receiving end of crime, and I do not think that we should set up a class society in response. I am not advocating that violent felons (aka "real felons") be let out with short terms. I am advocating that violent felons serve long sentences while non-violent felons, especially wrongly incarcerated felons that should have been charged with a misdemeanor (like Mr. Paey) should serve much shorter sentences.

If this were upheld, then we certainly could keep violent offenders in prison for a very long time. If we as a society think that they still are not to be trusted with a gun,then they should not be let out at all.

If the system operated like that, we would not have a class society, we would keep violent offenders in prison for a very long time, and we wouldn't have to worry about background checks and such.

Having been on the receiving end, I know that it is very easy to slip into an "us vs. them" mindset where someone who commits the slightest infraction is viewed as sub-human. After years if thought, I have concluded that we need to be extremely diligent in making sure that the punishment fits the crime, because the consequences are enormous (citizen enduring an excessive sentence/society being exposed to violent criminals that are released as a result of crowded prisons). Considering the fact that the average incarceration rate for murder is less than 6 years, I really think we need to prioritize who we sentence long terms to. Mr. Paey does not deserve the sentence he received.

 

[telewinz]

I do not include "white collar" crime inmates like Martha Steward. They are indeed a whole different creature and all the rehabilitation efforts (if really needed) apply and probably have a high success rate. I'm talking MAX security types that are the "real" expensive problems. I am superintendent of a prison industries enterprize. We "employ" 61 inmates and we "hire" the cream of the crop. My average inmate has 8.5 years of education and has an IQ under 80. My lowest is retarded (raped small children) and my most educated is a college grad thats a 3 time loser (last offense-sold stolen pistol/murder weapon to minor while serving as a Marine). Almost without exception they have the work ethic of a 13 year old (very poor) and the moral values of a weasel(little to none). There just isn't much to work with here and most likely never will be BUT I don't want them released in my city...EVER!

 

[Glock Glockler]

First, we don't have "entire population" and we never did.

When was the last time you walked through a ghetto or spoke with people in a public housing sector? I have that "privilage" far more than I would like and it is not an isolated incident that I see people with a broken set of values in a bankrupt culture. The overwhelming majority of the people there think the world is owed to them even though they've done nothing to earn anything. Packs of little kids come up to me demanding money, trying to pick my pockets, and when I tell them no I am the evil white man who is oppressing me. I might get off easy with some harsh words or they might throw rocks at me. I've long since parked my car in a packing garage and walked to my appointments since I dont want it to get trashed by these little animals. You walk a mile in my shoes, you go where I have gone and tell me if these people created by the welfare system are just isolated exceptions or if it is pervasive.

And a convict has even less opportunity. Thats why he is a convict and is much more likely to be a repeat offender. We understand the cause, whats the cheap solution thats more effective than what we have now?

Did you even bother to read my post? Perhaps I am failing to explain it properly. When you constrict an economy you make it worse for everyone, even people at the top though they are less impacted than the people at the bottom. Yes, convicts do have even less opportunity than most people, which is all the more reason to take the handcuffs off of the economy. With the govt intervention screwing up the economy the ex-convict has even less chance now to make it on the right path than he would otherwise. Take the handcuffs off, get the govt to stop screwing things up and let the market do its thing and the ex-convict will be better able to stay straight.

 

[why_me]

telewinz said
my most educated is a college grad thats a 3 time loser (last offense-sold stolen pistol/murder weapon to minor while serving as a Marine).

How exactly did he become a marine after his first 2 offenses? There is no way i can agree with most of what you say. You seem to put the world into good and evil. Its not that way at all. There is truly some evil people. And even rarer there are some truly good people. We all have faults. Some people make mistakes and they learn from them.
The question is do we damm some one for a non violent felony for life. It is a felony to pick up certain bird feathers on the ground. There are people who do to a weakness and moment of vulnerability make a wrong choice. There are victims of a goverment run amok like possession of cocaine that are felons. They werent dealers they just had a party planned. And last but not least. How many felons actually go to trial. Justice is blind but it sure knows the value of money. Most of your felons wouldnt be felons if they had the money for a good lawyer. Do you think Public Defenders can do the best job they can saddled with the case load they have?
Isnt it funny OJ Simsom can buy a gun but martha stewart cant?

Minnesota allows a felon to purchase handguns and rifles after a certaiin period of time. There crime rate didnt go thru the roof. Texas felons can have a firearm in there home.

And to those who dont obviously know Dr. Paul is a congressman from Texas. He is not a tool of any drug company lobby. He is a strict constitutionalist.

 

[telewinz]

Ok, charge him with that crime and add another decade or 2 to his sentence. What is so hard about that?

He is already serving a life sentence, I don't think an extra 20 years will matter.

Take the handcuffs off, get the govt to stop screwing things up and let the market do its thing and the ex-convict will be better able to stay straight.

Sounds good but in reality the convict will at best have a shot at a low paying job. Again, if he was content with that standard of living, he would not be in prison to begin with. No skills, no education, and no work ethic equals a low standard of living. Increasing the number of low paying jobs 5 fold will not help an (ex)inmate.

 

[Glock Glockler]

I know of ex-inmates who are working in low end jobs, they're not glamorous jobs (welding, tree cutting, construction, etc) but they get by with them. More economic growth might not guarantee success for them but it's better than what we have now. At the very least we'll be moving towards the end of the welfare culture.

If you have a better solution let me know

 

[telewinz]

I haven't heard a better workable solution. I think we should keep what we have.

 

[The Rabbi]

No contradiction here, if they claim that their religion requires them to gather in large groups for a long time to pray that can easily be a threat to guard security and also pose a risk to them escaping, so the prison can restrict that. They might claim the religion requires them to keep chicken bones on them, but those can easily be sharpened and used as a weapon, so the prision can restrict that. They might claim they have a right to free speech, but if one of the Aryan nation guy wants to get up and make a speech about how they will kill all the mudpeople in the upcomming race war, that might very well be inflammitory and lead to a big fight/riot in the prison, so they can restrict that as well.

Yes! And if they claim their religion requires child sacrifice or it requires polygamy or anything else that is illegal and repugnant to society then they wont get to practice it, regardless of whether they are in jail or not. Does that mean they have no right of free exercise of religion? No. It means there are limits set in place to protect others. Ditto for gun rights. You have just proven my point, thanks.
This thread seems to be careening into irrelevance.

 

[USP45usp]

I don't know. I just reread my Constitution and the Bill of Rights and it says nothing about taking away a persons Rights, whether they are felons or not. I just can't seem to find that, if you have read yours and you saw it printed, please enlighten me on the subject.

"Shall not be Infringed" seems to be a basic line, I didn't read "shall not be infringed if you are *insert word or words here*.

So, pray tell my good people, where do you get off by saying what you have? If the person is not able to maintain his or her rights, then why aren't they either buried beneath the jail or on the table?

There is no mistaken what the Constitution or the Bill or Rights outlines. Read it as you may, make it a "living document" if that is what pleases you. Yet in no way or no how does it disbar a person, a freeman, from any Rights as outlined.

My next door neighbor may be a killer, a crook, or a scumbag, that is the life that he or she has chosen. If he or she is out of jail due to the fact that you (the cops/feds and whomever) deem them to be "safe" then he or she should have their Rights, in full.

Oh, just to give some of you people a clue, in Oregon felon's have all their Rights except RKBA. They vote here people and that is more scary then allowing them to have a gun.

People like Tele and others have a thing against felons. They work in the system and their thoughts are what they are. If the person that committed a crime isn't safe enough to be freed then it's the problem of the legal system and not ours. If the person is freed then that person is a freeman and should have all Rights restored to him or her. If you don't think so then why is this person out in the first place?

People do change. Remember (men) when you were young, dumb and full of cum? You did stupid things then, like speeding and maxing out the power of your car (and or motorbike) and some still do. Remember when you took a "toke" off your first wacky weed cigg? Remember the first time that you took your new found freedom and did something stupid?

If you are "you can't throw a rock at this house" (which if anyone says they are holier than thou they are freaking lying their ass off) then maybe you have a say. But why judge? I remember a saying, "Do not judge yet you may be judged". Not quite right in the context but the message comes through.

I understand that the people that want non gun ownership by others are scared. They are the ones that think that if they can maintain a "power" over others then its a good thing. And the feds, the few we have here, they don't want any guns in any hands besides themselves (from what I've read). Bad guys (and gals) have existed before we were born. We have to ensure that we are equal on all grounds, and that you screwed up shouldn't be a death sentence, who the hell are you to play God and Judge?

If you are that scared of what may happen, join the damn brady bunch and let them ease your fears with things that cannot be. Live in a dream world and hide your head from your shame and your fear.

If you wish for reform, why don't you work to ensure that the monsters don't get out, if you fear the person that you are in charge of then ensure that they don't get back into society.

You see, I don't live in fear. My neighbors across the street are drug dealers, years of calling the cops have done nothing. No money in it. I have informed them that I am armed, 24/7 and I will kill them if they even look at me wrong, they have left me alone for years because they know that I am serious in the matter. Take their guns from them? Ha, the cops won't even bust them so what does it matter. I know they have guns, they know that I have guns. I know that if I interfare with their deals, they will interfare with my life yet at the same time they know that it's not going to be easy for them to take me out.

Should they be in jail, well the ones that have done more than sell drugs, I'm sure that many have done other things, somthing I gathered by talking with them one on one. Should they be disbarred their RKBA? If I wanted nothing but a sense of safety then I would be on the front of the line banning guns but I know that it can't be done so I have come to an agreement with them. What about the people that come over and buy their drugs... well, they want them so they should have the right to do whatever they please. If they die tonight or if I read about them in the paper, it's not my business, they choose that life.

Should the people across the street have their arms? Yes. If the government, state or feds don't think them as a problem then as a freeman they have all their Rights. Until the People demand that these people stay behind bars then it's an American Right that shall not be Infringed.

Wayne

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't know. I just reread my Constitution and the Bill of Rights and it says nothing about taking away a persons Rights, whether they are felons or not. I just can't seem to find that, if you have read yours and you saw it printed, please enlighten me on the subject.

I thought we covered this already. By your logic anyone anywhere should be able to have a gun, whether they are in jail or not. Whether they were adjudged mentally unstable or not. The Bill of Rights doesn't say anything about children not having guns so let's arm them as well.
Again, your view of the Second Amendment is simplistic, a-historical, and dowright absurd.

 

[USP45usp]

Rabbi

We all have our Rights the day we were allowed to be born.

Yes, children have a Right to a gun, as well as speech and as well as to choose their own Religion.

Absurd, I don't think so. You, I think, is the one that is absurd.

If a child or a person has no Rights then why don't we just use the children as sex slaves to do our bidding? If they have no Rights then why shouldn't we be able to keep them quiet until we decide they can talk? If we as American's, felons or not, have no God given Rights then why don't we just give up this "high road" and allow ourselves to just do what we wish against anyone that we wish.

Hell, why don't we just make it a law to gas a certain people or to deny the Right to life to others. That's always worked in the past didn't it?

Yes, it was a cheap shot but you should know better then any others here. You were considered felons under the law of a country not that long ago, and it caused over 3 million deaths.

Care to restate your position or was the law at the time, justified?

Wayne

 

[USP45usp]

Too add to what many will think is anti-Jewish.

Many of my "kind" were also gassed, gays. I look back and say Never Again, I cannot speak for any others.

Rights are Rights.

Wayne

 

[telewinz]

Absurd, I don't think so. You, I think, is the one that is absurd.

Maybe you should re-think your position OR maybe we should start looking for some good two year old children for the next presidential election.

 

[USP45usp]

Tele

Maybe we should, couldn't do any worse then what we've had so far.

Maybe they would swallow and not leave a mark on the blue dress... what say you?

Wayne

 

[Firethorn]

religion requires child sacrifice or it requires polygamy or anything else that is illegal and repugnant to society then they wont get to practice it

Human sacrifice, in whatever form, harms another human, and thus is quite illegal.

Polygamy? The act that's typically prosecuted in the US is when somebody marries multiple others without them knowing. The old sailor's "woman in every port". But what if all parties are consenting with full knowledge?

What about the "vision quests" some tribes practice by taking hallucinogenic substances? These are generally done in controlled situations, and do not lead to long disability or addiction.

We have, or at least had, laws against "unnatural sex". Even between a married, consenting couple in private. It may be "repugnant", but I feel that if I'm not offended at least a bit by what others do, society isn't free enough.

If it doesn't directly threaten or harm another, or break a contract, it shouldn't be illegal.

As for convict's rights, it is commonly held that, at least during their sentence, that they've forfeighted their rights. But what about once they get out? I can see a period of restriction, but I believe that regaining the right to keep and bear arms should be a scheduled part of that restoration.

If you look at career criminals, as a rule, they're unable to keep their noses out of trouble for any length of time. If somebody is convicted, serves their time in prison, is released, then stays out of trouble for, say, a decade, why shouldn't we restore their rights? A kid (I'm talking mental maturity), steals a car at 18. He serves five years in prison, learns to be a welder or some other trade. He's now 23. He finds a job, keeps up with his parole officer, eventually marries. Let's say that he's now 25. At 26 he has his first kid. At age 33 he has two kids, age 7 and 5.

Do you think this man, who stole a car as a 'kid', but has since kept his nose clean, deserves to legally own a gun, be able to teach his children firearms safety? When the one who hasn't kept his nose clean, obtained a gun illegally 9 3/4 years ago, and is serving a new 20 year sentence?

 

[telewinz]

Maybe they would swallow and not leave a mark on the blue dress... what say you?

Not very tasteful (I've heard) no matter how you take your comment

 

[USP45usp]

Tele,

I wanted to make that commet as distastful as I could.

It's what makes a person think.

Please read your comments and reflect on them, as all that have given a con to the question.

I think that a smart one would rethink his or her commentment on the subject.

All one has to do is think back on the history, think forward to the present, and think of the future and no matter the malady or the happenings of the present, or the past, can a sane man think that to take away a Right of another is justice or what should be done.

Our Forefathers killed and maimed and were called extremist and criminals. They fought a battle and won, yet we who have inherited this blessing condemns his fellow man, without question and just because the "law" states it so.

Our Forefathers went against the King and that was considered a felon in the olden times. To those that are Christian, many of the ones that preached the word were murders, thiefs, criminals yet they found Grace when all others left them up for dead or anti-social.

We are we to judge or to look another in the eye and tell them that they are lower class citizens based on our word? Who are we to act as God and as judge and jury? Who are we to tell another that he or she is not worth the life that was given to them.

Are you God Tele? Are you God (to the feds)? Are you God? People will make mistakes, it's human nature to do so, yet are you goddly enough to pass your judgement on these people? Are you willing to take them into your embrace and protect them since you've deemed that they they are sub human? Look around your household, how many of these people do you have there? How many of these people do you thing sub humam over a mistake and how many have you helped?

As Oleg put it, "A human Right". One of his first posters. A human Right, to be safe by any means possible. You make a mistake you pay the price (even though I believe the price may be too high in many cases). You are allowed out then you are equal with all, you are a human being and if you are blessed to live in America, then you have all your Rights, no questions asked.

And to all that says that you should show everyone what I believe:

My 1 year old nephew has his own pellet gun. I bought it, it's his. Should he have it at two, you bet you. It's his Right as an American.

Have I bought the Eagle Eddie tape, you bet you and he watches it every day. Overkill, no, firearms are a fact of life, he should learn about them.

Will this little boy learn how to shoot before he's even out of diapers, damn straint. You got a problem with that, then enlighten me.

As for myself, I have thought enough and done enough to be branded a felon. Yet I still pass the NICS check and I still keep myself from being caught. The laws that I break are not against a person but the laws that are on the books. Laws that shouldn't be. Why do I mention that when I know that there are feds who are looking at this board, because no law that is against the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is null and void. Law of man is void, I only obey the law of the land.

Wayne

*hell, my English is bad. I'm Dutch yet I believe more in America then Americans. Sad isn't it.

 

[jptsr1]

Yes.

J.

 

[why_me]

In reply to firethorn

What your missing here and mnay others is this. The felon you mentioned has kept his nose clean. Maybe he is working nights in a crappy neighborhood.
HIS wife cannot own a gun! See if a cop comes to his house and sees his WIFES gun on the nightstand. He is going to do time for posession If he borrows his freinds car and the freind has a gun in the trunk HE is guilty of possession. IF his son or daughter goes hunting and brings there rifle home HE is guilty of possession.
when you take away a felons RKBA you not only take away his right to protect his family you also take away any member in his houses' right to protect there family.
Do you think low paying jobs get you into gated communitys? If we take away a felons right to protect his family then we need to provide 24 hour security for that person. Do you agree to that? Didnt think so.