Should violent felons be allowed to own guns?

[Desertdog]

Should ALL "FELONS" be painted with the same brush? That seems to be the question to many of us.

There are so many laws that make you a "Felon" these days that it is hard to figure out the REAL BGs from the laws on the books.

There are a number of laws on the books that will make you a "Felon" that not many years ago wasn't even against the law.

Martha Stewart comes to mind as an example. As a "covicted felon" would you feel safe around her if she was armed, now prohibited, because she is a convicted felon?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

As a gunowner who opposes any form of gun control, I need to place reasonable and moral restrictions wherever possible, restrictions that DO NOT restrict the rights of LAW-ABIDING citizens. If you have been convicted of a violent felony, you forfeit your rights....permanently.

This could have come right out of the VPC handbook. Brady bunch propaganda.

The only thing it lacks is "Common Sense Gun Laws", "Reasonable", no, you said reasonable, "Gun Safety" and "For the Children".

Orwellian Double Speak.

It walks and quacks. Only thing it doesn't do is say, "AFLACK".

 

[Jeff]

Hey cropwalker, why can't you just debate the points, instead of attacking the semantics of a single phrase?

Probably because you can't?

In any event, let me parse it for you anyways:

"As a gunowner who opposes any form of gun control..." (This means I oppose gun control, plain and simple.)

"I need to place reasonable and moral restrictions whenever possible..." (This means I favor any restrictions that fall outside of gun control. For example, the government has the ability to remove the right of gun ownership for a convicted felon. I personally believe, as do many others here, that those gun rights should be permanently restricted even after release from prison. Another example of resonable restriction would be not allowing a five-year child to carry a loaded handgun. Don't try to pin some type of gun-control label on me, Jack, cause it won't stick. And equalising what I said with well-known gun-control literature or rhetoric is weak.)

"Restrictions that do not restrict the rights of law abiding citizens." (As I've already explained, there are some rational and constitutional restrictions on guns that do not equate to gun control.)

"If you have been convicted of a violent felony, you forfeit your rights, permanently." (This is self-explanatory. Although I thought the other stuff was self-explanatory, too, but I had to explain it anyways. )

 

[Sheslinger]

OK, here is my take on why we have No answers winning.

The question seem to demand a Yes answer as self preservation is a right that no one should be able to take away.

The problem is that legal and moral definitions of a violent felon are far from being the same. Legally, a lawyer can get someone off after that person commits a cold-blooded rape or a murder on a pure technicality. So, legally, the state says the person is innocent or rehabilitated so, I agree, since they are ok legally, they should be legally allowed to own a gun.

The problem is that morally they are still an animal and morally they should not be allowed to live or at the very least walk free among us, hence, no guns.

So, the question is whether this poll is about a legal or a moral definition. Since most of us believe that a right to own a firearm is a moral one and not a legal one, seems only logical that we should also use a moral definition of a felon which automatically causes a No answer. However, it seems that those who answer Yes, use the legal definition of a felon which changes the answer. We are either talking in terms of law (legality) or common sense (morality). I don't think we can have it both ways.

That's why I earlier brought up the Texas law: Even a felon has the right of self-defense within his own home. On the street, he has no more rights than any other non-CHL person. If he "totes", he's subject to "Hello, warden."

I like that.

I know that my post is a rambling but the bottom line is that I believe a lot of us answered No not because we want gun control or class-divided society. Your accusations of such are unfounded. The reason is that even though legally the state says someone is rehabilitated, morally they are not and in the Wild West they would be shot on the spot and the whole ordeal be over.

We are talking violent and reprehensible crimes, so let's not split hairs over today's legal definition of a felon because they broke some feel-good law.

 

[ksnecktieman]

Let me try again to state my opinion,,,,,,,,,,,, A man gets a gun,,, and goes out and commits armed robbery, (a crime) he may or may not shoot someone, (another crime) Does anyone think he will care if his gun is legal or not? If he will take a chance on ten years for armed robbery, or twenty, if he shoots someone, will he care if he does it with an illegal weapon, that posessing will get him a year of probation?

GUN CONTROL DOES NOT AFFECT CRIMINALS, IT ONLY AFFECTS SOMEONE THAT WANTS TO OBEY THE LAW.

Do you want to outlaw cars to stop drunk driving?
Do you want to outlaw matches to stop arson?

 

[Jeff]

Let me try again to state my opinion,,,,,,,,,,,, A man gets a gun,,, and goes out and commits armed robbery, (a crime) he may or may not shoot someone, (another crime) Does anyone think he will care if his gun is legal or not? If he will take a chance on ten years for armed robbery, or twenty, if he shoots someone, will he care if he does it with an illegal weapon, that posessing will get him a year of probation?

Your thinking is amazingly simplistic. You actually believe that every violent crime committed is an act of premeditated aggression? Come on.
What about the prisons that are filled with impulse, spur-of-the-moment, domestic-abuse felons, or fetal-alcohol felons, or bipolar felons, or just plain "got crazy one night 'cause my girlfriend was seeing another guy and I was drinking too much tequila so I shot em both" felons???

You see, sometimes people commit crimes because of temporary insanity, or passion, or personality disorders-- all non-premeditated crimes. Everyone is capable of committing these types of crimes, but we shouldn't restrict firearms ownership for those who haven't done so. That would be called prior restraint, and would be immoral. But with those who have been convicted of such crimes, there is no more prior restraint.

You want violent offenders who have a pathological condition owning firearms? On one of their stints between jail-terms?

Sometimes you anarcho-Libertarians fail to think critically. This thread is a perfect example.

Again, I want to stress:

Those who murder should be executed.

Those who rape should be emasculated.

Those who use firearms to commit violent crimes should be DE-CLAWED.

The first two statements identify permanence. Why wouldn't the last statement?

 

[cropcirclewalker]

HI ho, there, Jeff, CCW here,

I'm too deep into the bourbon at this time of night to be rational. Please, for me in the morning explain, I will just look it up..

You said, "

Hey cropwalker, why can't you just debate the points, instead of attacking the semantics of a single phrase?

Probably because you can't?

Just explain to me how the 2nd amendment justifies your position.

What part of "shall not be infringed", do you not understand?"

 

[Jeff]

What part of "shall not be infringed", do you not understand?"

Well, bourbon-boy, let me say this. We both damn-well know (at least I do) that the 2nd amendment doesn't allow imprisoned people to own and operate fireams. Or does it? Hmmmmm...should we make it legal?

What about 5 yr old children? Should they have the right to carry loaded 1911 pistols on them? Are their rights being infringed?

As a Libertarian, you can operate from every angle possible by working the semantics of the Constitution to support your position. But such a position is fallable, as I've pointed out.

As a libertarian, I'm using the policy of "non-aggression" for my argument. And it's simple: you've been convicted of a violent offense-- a violent aggression-- then you no longer have a right to own firearms. You f_ _ _ _ _ up, Mr Felon, so don't be staining my rights with your irresponsible actions and poor choices.

 

[DMF]

Let me try again to state my opinion,,,,,,,,,,,, A man gets a gun,,, and goes out and commits armed robbery, (a crime) he may or may not shoot someone, (another crime) Does anyone think he will care if his gun is legal or not? If he will take a chance on ten years for armed robbery, or twenty, if he shoots someone, will he care if he does it with an illegal weapon, that posessing will get him a year of probation?

Well obviously you haven't seen ANY of my posts about the ATF and cases they have worked for felons in possession. Those cases don't result in a year of probation, they result in jail time. Prosecutors that handle those cases press for jail time, and juries give it. Project Safe Neighborhoods Press Releases

Now let ME try again to state my opinion; the issue is not catching the guy AFTER his second, or third violent crime, it's about catching him before his second violent crime. He goes to jail on violent crime #1 and after release he is a prohibited person under 18USC922(g). Now if he is caught with a gun, that in and of itself is a crime, and he goes back to jail BEFORE he has an opportunity to hurt or kill someone in violent crime #2.

 

[pax]

Now if he is caught with a gun, that in and of itself is a crime, and he goes back to jail BEFORE he has an opportunity to hurt or kill someone in violent crime #2.

Ah, so you favor prior restraint.

Historically, people understood that was a bad thing.

It is better to lock people up for crimes they actually DO commit, instead of locking them up for crimes they MIGHT commit.

Locking people up for crimes they MIGHT commit is one proven way to make the criminal justice system more criminal than just.

pax

The idea that the sole aim of punishment is to prevent crime is obviously grounded upon the theory that crime can be prevented, which is almost as dubious as the notion that poverty can be prevented. -- H.L. Mencken

 

[DMF]

No pax it's not prior restraint. 18USC922(g) makes the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon a crime. Because of their prior bad acts those felons now face that restriction as part of the consequences for being a criminal. As a consequence of their crimes they now must be subject to a restriction of some of their liberties. It allows a greater protection for society. They committed a crime, and now if they can't live with the consequences of their crime (being a prohibited person) they are demonstrating a propensity to commit crimes again. If the criminals don't want to face the consequences of the crimes, they shouldn't commit them in the first place.

 

[pax]

To rephrase my point (which you missed or sidestepped):

It is better to lock people up for harm they DO commit, rather than for harm they MIGHT commit.

pax

We are getting into semantics again. If we use words, there is a very grave danger they will be misinterpreted. -- H. R. Haldeman

 

[pax]

Incidentally, DMF, you just conceded my original point:

If there is a law against felons owning guns, the only felons who aren't going to own guns are the ones who have actually learned to respect the law (and who therefore are no longer dangerous).

pax

There is no conversation more boring than the one where everybody agrees. -- Michel de Montaigne

 

[DMF]

Not conceding your point AT ALL. Yes, punish people for crimes they commit. Commit one felony, then part of your punishment is not being allowed to possess firearms. Can't follow that law, then you get locked up again. I'm not saying that those felons will follow the law, but it does allow for a significant number to be locked up for breaking that law, rather than hurting someone again. Also, if they get out and commit a crime again, they are now a three time loser and going in for life. The exact course of action recommended by several people on this thread. Seems very effective when applied to people that actually do commit those crimes.

 

[pax]

DMF,

You may not admit that you conceded it. You conceded it nonetheless:

They committed a crime, and now if they can't live with the consequences of their crime (being a prohibited person) they are demonstrating a propensity to commit crimes again.

As you said, a felon who breaks that law is demonstrating that he has not learned respect for law in general.

A felon who obeys that law, on the other hand, is demonstrating that he has learned respect for law. He is therefore no longer a threat to other people.

Laws against owning guns hinder only those who are inclined to obey the law.

pax

Putting up no-gun-zone signs in the expectation that it will stop a murderer is akin to hanging garlic in your window to ward off vampires. -- "Karansas" on TFL

 

[Diamondback]

Should a rabid dog be employed to protect the family ??????????? Yea..let's give the violent felons RPG's while we're at it !
Yea....everyone gets to carry a gun irregardless....those with mental defects, children under 12, drug addicts.............autistics....what the hey........great apes.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

Jeff said

Well, bourbon-boy, let me say this. We both damn-well know (at least I do) that the 2nd amendment doesn't allow imprisoned people to own and operate fireams. Or does it? Hmmmmm...should we make it legal?

What about 5 yr old children? Should they have the right to carry loaded 1911 pistols on them? Are their rights being infringed?

As a Libertarian, you can operate from every angle possible by working the semantics of the Constitution to support your position. But such a position is fallable, as I've pointed out.

You don't make any more sense when I'm sober, so I guess it's not me.

1) The 2nd amendment does NOT allow anybody to do anything. It only tells the govt. that it may not infringe on the God given rights of the people.

2) I have read of instances wherin a child has protected his family from crooks or wild animals with a fire arm. I could google the instances if I had the inclination, which I don't. You know I am correct.

3) The semantics of 2A do not require any working.

It appears to me, only my opinion, that you favor gun control and don't even know it. Maybe you are really a Democrat. Please read the BOR again.

 

[DMF]

Right now the poll results are:

Should violent felons be allowed to own guns?
Yes - 32.95%
No - 67.05%

This is pro-gun website and only 1/3 of the people think it's a good idea. Should tell you something about how people feel about the issue of felons suffering consequences for their crimes.

BTW, just in case there are any felons following this the law prohibits felons from POSSESSING firearms, not just owning them. (question is poorly worded) Saying "that pistol belongs to my wife" won't work as a defense.

 

[pax]

This is pro-gun website and only 1/3 of the people think it's a good idea. Should tell you something about how people feel about the issue of felons suffering consequences for their crimes.

I note you gave up trying to refute the logical point in favor of the group-think defense.

"Everybody thinks this way" never has been very convincing.

pax

In the United States the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own. -- Alexis de Tocqueville

 

[DMF]

Didn't give up anything. I made my point, and you have a differing opinion, stating and restating the same things over and over, is not going to change your opinion or mine. I was just pointing out the realities of the situation.

 

[Jeff]

You don't make any more sense when I'm sober, so I guess it's not me.

I suggest putting the bottle down once in awhile and giving your brain cells a chance to regroup.

The 2nd amendment does NOT allow anybody to do anything. It only tells the govt. that it may not infringe on the God given rights of the people.

Wake up, man. YOU are the one using the 2nd amendment as your main defense, and I'm trying to get you to answer some questions. But like so many on these forums, all you do is squirm around the difficult questions and announce one empty platitude after another. You need more than platitudes to construct a convincing argument. Many of the anarchists on these boards are unable to form such an argument.

So, are you telling me it is okay for the gov't to "infringe" on the rights of an imprisoned convict, or a 5 yr old child? If you believe it is, then I'm merely adding one condition to the list and suggesting the same "infringement" should be taken against violent felons, even after their release.

I have read of instances wherin a child has protected his family from crooks or wild animals with a fire arm. I could google the instances if I had the inclination, which I don't. You know I am correct.

I'm sure this has happened.

Now answer the question. Should five yr old children be allowed to carry CCW or Vt carry? You are stuck, buddy. If you answer yes, then you will have publicly announced what an irrational extremist you are. If you answer no, then you are saying the "infringement" is valid sometimes, and you will look like a hypocrite.

It appears to me, only my opinion, that you favor gun control and don't even know it.

It appears to me, only my opinion, you are an idiot.

Maybe you are really a Democrat.

Yes, as well as 2/3 of the participants in this thread.

Please read the BOR again.

Please get a CLUE.

 

[cropcirclewalker]

I said:

Maybe you are really a Democrat.

Jeff said:

Yes, as well as 2/3 of the participants in this thread.

Well, that explains it.
I don't knowing talk to Democrats.
it's like trying to teach a pig to sing.

 

[Jeff]

Well, that explains it.

Among other things, cropwalker doesn't understand sarcasm.

I don't knowing talk to Democrats.

This unintelligble statement is no doubt the result of another bourbon-soaked evening?



Come on, croppy, just answer my question. I challenge any anarcho here to answer my question. Should a five yr old child be allowed to carry a handgun?

Instead of trying to address everything with cheesy platitudes and misdirected references to the constitution, try to actually formulate an argument and answer the difficult questions.

I'm waiting.

 

[ksnecktieman]

Jeff? Under eighteen a childs actions are answerable by their parents. The responsibility is the parents, therefore the decision is the parents. I do not think they should make diapers with hidden holsters, but I do not think there is a need for legislation on it. I see nothing wrong with responsible young teens carrying guns, the responsible part determined by the parents, not the courts, or legislature.

 

[Art Eatman]

All we lack is a post from Retch, Son of Thing, to really make it look horrible.

As it is, the slanging and banging brought out the lock.

IMO, some folks oughta do the PM thing with some apologies to one another...

Art