Should violent criminals be allowed to purchase firearms?

[RKBABob]

In another thread some people suggested that barring felons from purchasing firearms violates the Second Amendment. This poll was created to seperate the issue from any others.

Tell me, THR, what do you think? Should people convicted of crimes like rape and armed assault ever be trusted with the right to bear arms again? Or should we, as a society, have the power to suspend certain rights from those we deem unfit to exercise them.

 

[Sgt.Dusk]

I wonder if there will be any YES votes....

 

[LSCurrier]

I think people who have been convicted of certain violent crime, such as murder and rape, should be catagorized such that they are flagged and blocked from purchasing / owning guns. However, there needs to be a provision so that some who has served the penalty for their crime can have their rights restored. This restoration of rights should be a single time thing so that repeat offenders are not able to get their rights back.

Also, this restoration of rights should be possible for those with domestic abuse issues - except for repeat offenders.

Luke

 

[SammyIamToday]

If it was my world, really violent criminals would never be released from prison. However, other felons would get their gun rights back as soon as their restitution/imprisonment was done.

 

[Twycross]

Where there is a will there is a way. If an ex-criminal wants to get a weapon, they will, law or no law. Prohibiting ex-felons from legally purchasing firearms affects only those that we don't need to worry about.

Tack onto that the fact that we are stripping the civil rights of guys who's only offense was getting into a drunken barfight in college.

And of course, to answer no to the question is to declare that the the right to keep and bear arms is not an inalienable human right, and the government can strip said right if they see fit, based upon how 'dangerous' you are.

 

[Nix]

wow way to go rigged poll.

maybe the 'violent criminal' should have a special look at... if they did not use firearms in their previous crime why would they in this one? what 'violent crime' are you talking about? a man who ran over someone when drunk and has since given up alcohol and served his time? a woman who protected herself more than the law see's fit and killed her attacker? i mean your poll is BS the way its worded.

 

[DragonFire]

Though I voted no, I really think, as others have said, that there should be something in between. All felons, or all murderers are not alike. Some should be locked up forever (or worse), some should be allowed to "earn" the right to own firearms again.

And of course, to answer no to the question is to declare that the the right to keep and bear arms is not an inalienable human right, and the government can strip said right if they see fit, based upon how 'dangerous' you are.

It is not an inalienable right, otherwise it wouldn't be in the Bill of Rights. And as unlikely as it is, it could be stripped away, though not by the "government" but by a national vote (like prohibition was added and then revoked).

 

[Walkalong]

No, some should be shot in the back of the head immediately upon arrest, some should spend their lives in a jail where they don't want to be (ie, not a plush place with all the ammenities), some should do time and get out with no chance to own arms again. They chose their career, sorry.

 

[Quickdraw McGraw]

2 yes votes . . . must be 2 violent criminals here somewhere. Like the Nuge says - I like my rapists dead - I like my muggers dead!

Dead thugs cannot buy weapons at all!

 

[romma]

Difference between violent, and non-violent felons...

 

[jkingrph]

I voted no given the choices. There are other's convicted of "violent" crimes other than rape or mugging.

What about the guy conviceted of shooting someone in the course of say defending his home or family. It might be ok in some areas as where I live in rural Texas, but a felony in some of the large more "liberal" leaning cities.

Everything is not black or white, sometimes there exists shades of gray!!

 

[everallm]

the problem with this is that unless you are incredibly careful in crafting the law you will strip the rights from a huge swathe of folks inappropriately.

The category and scope of "violent felon" is continually being expanded by governments who want to be seen to be doing something without tackling root causes.

Late us take the example of Mr OJ Simpson.

He has been found innocent of murder in the criminal court but lost his case in civil court.
He continues to be embroiled in cases where violence has allegedley been used, Las Vegas and the memorabilia being simply the latest.

He currently stands as the poster child for "American Justice, the finest that money can buy".

I firmly believe he most certainly is not an appropriate person to own or have access to firearms, but no violent CRIMINAL conviction.

The other side of the coin......

Drew and Stacey Peterson, on 18 occassions the police where called out on domestic disturbance calls where Drew convinced the police to charge his wife in at least 2 cases. This could have easily led to her being disqualified from the RKBA as a violent felon.

The moral of the stories is that "gut check" law is fast law and is inevitably bad law.

Before you tar and brush "violent felons", make damn sure any law is very carefully crafted it's not going to come back and bite YOU in the rear.

 

[Robert Hairless]

This is not a poll or even a discussion starter.

Surely The High Road is better than those segments of the media that publish rigged polls to manipulate people. You're better than that too.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

When I am undisputed ruler of the universe All violent offenders, rape, murder, serious bodily injury.. will be ale to buy anything they want upon completion of their sentence.
Sentence for violent offense will be hanging followed by shooting and being drawn and quartered.
Upon completion of sentence they are free to go.

 

[Walkalong]

I like it RoadkingLarry.

 

[the pistolero]

I am in full and complete agreement with Walkalong and RoadkingLarry. If a convicted criminal cannot be trusted with a firearm, then why is he walking free and (perhaps) unsupervised?! Or she, as the case may be. As the inimitable David Codrea put it, anyone who can't be trusted with a gun can't be trusted without a custodian.

 

[ilbob]

they should be in jail. no guns allowed there.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Surely The High Road is better than those segments of the media that publish rigged polls to manipulate people.

Agreed.

 

[RKBABob]

If it was my world, really violent criminals would never be released from prison. However, other felons would get their gun rights back as soon as their restitution/imprisonment was done.

Yeah... I don't think Martha Stewart is a danger to society... We're only talking about violent felonies.

No, some should be shot in the back of the head immediately upon arrest, some should spend their lives in a jail where they don't want to be (ie, not a plush place with all the ammenities),

Sentence for violent offense will be hanging followed by shooting and being drawn and quartered. Upon completion of sentence they are free to go.

If a convicted criminal cannot be trusted with a firearm, then why is he walking free and (perhaps) unsupervised?!

they should be in jail. no guns allowed there.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where we're expected to believe that criminals should be "rehabilitated" and not punished.

 

[Eric F]

all this stuff has so many issues involved.......but I sa no in most cases there are always execptions to everything such as A child molester who has been caught with all the evidence in the world stacked against him and has to be let go on some sort of technicality. If the parent/s beat this guy to death with a wiffle ball bat should they be allowed to have a gun? Well I say sure to me its an excuseable crime.
A previous post asked what the diffrence between violent and nonviolent fellons would be? nonviolent would be the white collar crime of embeselment should they be allowed to buy a gun after they serve a sentence? I think not. I have no problem with saying felons should not be allowed to have guns. Violent or not. Now what makes a Felon a Felon is a diffrent story. You can become a felon in one state for a crime where in a other state the crime would only be a misdomeanor. That does not seem fair to me and is a bigger issue to me.

 

[Andrew Rothman]

Rigged poll. Ask the right question. You'll get good answers.

 

[Liko81]

A felon has been proven guilty of a serious crime, and odds are they used a weapon to perpetrate it. I see no reason to allow someone to have a gun when they have already proven they are willing and able to commit a crime with it.

A felon convicted of a nonviolent offense can seek to have his civil rights restored. If a court says the person given a firearm poses no threat to society, regardless of their convict status, they can have one, and I support that. In the case of violent or sex offenders, the saying "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" applies; you may have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and you may do so without a firearm, but you have already proven that you threaten others' life, liberty, and happiness if you are given a weapon.

 

[Sistema1927]

Rigged poll.

#1 No gun control law has ever stopped criminals from obtaining weapons.
#2 No gun control law has ever protected the innocent from violent criminals.
#3 Gun control laws have led to the death of the innocent.
#4 Instead of controlling guns, we need to do a better job in controlling criminals.

It is not access to guns that is the problem.

 

[ozwyn]

In a mythical world where those violent criminals served their FULL TIME for the crimes they have been lawfully convicted, without any incidents that would show they are inclined to commit another crime, and after the probation period (often lasting years), psychological evaluation/therapy and job placement so that society can actually claim they paid their debt, then yes.

If you are talking about the system as it exsists today? Heck no. Our system doesn't work for a damn.

then again, I would vote #3 - poll is rigged

 

[REOIV]

I voted Yes, even though the poll is obviously biased.

If a person is out of prison it means we as society feel they have paid their debt.

That said if we trust them enough to drive a car, buy butcher knives, chainsaws, axes, sledge hammers etc, why not fire arms?

Either they have paid their dues or they haven't but this in between area clouds the issue.

And to all you people saying they shouldn't be able to buy fire arms so much for "Firearms are a tool like anything else."

I can only assume you think freed violent felons shouldn't be able to own any tools, be they cars, screw drivers, axes, chainsaws, sledge hammers, etc.

Serve your time and you're all right by me.
Do it again and you can rot in jail forever for all I care.