artherd
member
Amen.
Should violent felons be allowed to own guns?
- Thread starter natedog
- Start date
- Status
Amen.
ACP
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 1,334
HELL NO.
The argument that if someone has served their time and is "well" enough to be released back into society ignores the status of our criminal justice system; that is, people usually have to commit numerous crimes before they are ever sentenced in the first place, felons cop to lesser pleas in exchange for cooperation, felons are released early due to overcrowding, etc. This does not reflect their true nature: sociopath. If you are a violent felon -- murder, robbery, rape, and other crimes -- I don't ever want to see you with a legally purchased firearm in your hands. And I would give money to a candidiate and flood Washington D.C. with letters to ensure that.
The argument that if someone has served their time and is "well" enough to be released back into society ignores the status of our criminal justice system; that is, people usually have to commit numerous crimes before they are ever sentenced in the first place, felons cop to lesser pleas in exchange for cooperation, felons are released early due to overcrowding, etc. This does not reflect their true nature: sociopath. If you are a violent felon -- murder, robbery, rape, and other crimes -- I don't ever want to see you with a legally purchased firearm in your hands. And I would give money to a candidiate and flood Washington D.C. with letters to ensure that.
MeekandMild
Member
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2002
- Messages
- 1,877
Under the old definition of "violent felons" I'd say no they shouldn't.
But under the new definition, killing a feline leukemia and distemper carrying feral cat is considered to be a violent felony in some jurisdictions. Hitting the drunk who is coming on to your wife is a violent felony in some jurisdictions. Heaven forbid a mama should DARE switch her nasty tantrum-prone child and leave a mark! That is a violent felony in many jusrisdictions.
OTOH a mentally ill person can get off for hacking her mother to death with a bucher knife and she is considered to be NOT be a felon!
WE know what WE mean by violent felony, but then we aren't in charge of the nanny state are we?
But under the new definition, killing a feline leukemia and distemper carrying feral cat is considered to be a violent felony in some jurisdictions. Hitting the drunk who is coming on to your wife is a violent felony in some jurisdictions. Heaven forbid a mama should DARE switch her nasty tantrum-prone child and leave a mark! That is a violent felony in many jusrisdictions.
OTOH a mentally ill person can get off for hacking her mother to death with a bucher knife and she is considered to be NOT be a felon!
WE know what WE mean by violent felony, but then we aren't in charge of the nanny state are we?
dance varmint
Member
Dru Sjodin
Ask her parents now that they have her body back. Anyone want to make this "time done, debt paid" argument in light of her murder?
Ask her parents now that they have her body back. Anyone want to make this "time done, debt paid" argument in light of her murder?
Not wanting a felon to be armed seems reasonable. But what good does this law do? All it does is encourage violent felons to not keep guns around when they are "off duty".
Its just the same as concealed carry restrictions. Unless the police have the power to stop and search people at will, the only time you would know someone has a gun is if they pull it on you and ask for your wallet or life.
The felon gun restrictions are just a pathetic band-aid on our creaking justice system. If a person is so dangerous that simply their being armed presents such a threat to pulic safety, why are they free in the first place?
We've made such a practice of letting murderers and rapists go free that a silly law like this actually makes sense to us.
Its just the same as concealed carry restrictions. Unless the police have the power to stop and search people at will, the only time you would know someone has a gun is if they pull it on you and ask for your wallet or life.
The felon gun restrictions are just a pathetic band-aid on our creaking justice system. If a person is so dangerous that simply their being armed presents such a threat to pulic safety, why are they free in the first place?
We've made such a practice of letting murderers and rapists go free that a silly law like this actually makes sense to us.
"Anyone want to make this "time done, debt paid" argument in light of her murder?"
Yeah, I do.
Whether this guy should have been let out of prison or not is not part of this argument. Whether his sentence was adequate for his prior crimes or not, is not part of this argument.
Obviously the fact that he was a felon and didn't have his rights restored under our present laws didn't prevent him from commiting another crime did it ?
Another thing that isn't part of this argument is; what if she had a gun ? She could have and didn't.
Yeah, I do.
Whether this guy should have been let out of prison or not is not part of this argument. Whether his sentence was adequate for his prior crimes or not, is not part of this argument.
Obviously the fact that he was a felon and didn't have his rights restored under our present laws didn't prevent him from commiting another crime did it ?
Another thing that isn't part of this argument is; what if she had a gun ? She could have and didn't.
Hypnogator
Member
As a law enforcement professional with more than 30 years of law enforcement and law enforcement training experience, plus graduate level education in counseling psychology, I can tell you that the only reliable predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
Sometimes violent felons do reform. But we'd be fools to trust any of them to behave responsibly.
Sometimes violent felons do reform. But we'd be fools to trust any of them to behave responsibly.
Jay Kominek
Member
Bwahahaha.
Oh yeah, because those legally purchased firearms are so much more dangerous than the illegal ones!
I can't believe so many people are so willing to use the anti-gun movement's "arguments", just so long as the targets aren't themselves!
GigaBuist
Member
As a human being with only 24 years experience living on this earth my opinion is different. I know, personally, one man that has a felony on his record that is deprived RKBA from past behavior. He got into a shouting match with his sister (as far as I know) many years before I was born while drunk and found later with a .380 pistol in his car. Somehow a felony came out of this, and his behaviour that night WAS violent. I presume he fits the "violent felon" persona to people here.
Having known this man for oh, 10 years now, I'd have no problems with him having a CCW permit let alone being able to own firearms.
In my personal limited experiences I've never seen the law actually prevent somebody from owning a weapon that shouldn't. My nearly brain-dead aunt owns a .357 I hear and she is absolutely not fit to own a firearm. She's mentally disabled clinically I undertand from abuse of prescription drugs. Her son, a convicted felon, used a fiream (justifiably IMHO) to shoot two men breaking into his apartment over a drug-deal gone bad. He shouldn't have owned a firearm but he did -- and he shot two people with it.
OTOH the feller I wrote about 1st is disarrmed. So, the two that I know that SHOULD be disarrmed are not, and the one I know that shouldn't be is.
The laws don't work... and they're just there for abuse and "feel good" legislation if you ask me.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
I voted "yes".
I didn't vote it for the felons benefit.
I voted it for ours.
I didn't vote it for the felons benefit.
I voted it for ours.
Tom Bri
Member
There should be some process for a full return of citizen rights. I don't think it should be easy or quick, but a lot of people have turned their lives around, and this should be encouraged. Maybe 15 years after release, plus evidence of a stable life, employment, no brushes with the law, no DWI, a piss test for drugs. A guy who at 18 commits a felony, spends 10 years inside, then 15 years clean outside, should have a chance to become a citizen again.
Jay Kominek
Member
I'm pretty sure that felons can ask their Governor (or the President, if it was a federal felony) for their rights to be restored. (The power stems from being able to pardon people.)
But I get the impression that it doesn't happen very often. Politicians all want to appear tough on crime, after all.
dance varmint
Member
If I undertand the yes respondents, the just and fair alternative to the current system of prison sentences and rights restrictions seem to be longer sentences but with rights restored on release. Since inmates have no gun rights anyway, how is it more consistent with natural rights for them to simply be incarcerated longer? In effect, the rights restrictions we now impose are the extension of their sentence, without the astronomical cost of protecting society from them in prisons.
Another issue; why not restore legal gun ownership to violent felon parolees? [Making a strawman argument here] If they are safe enough to release early, aren't they eligible to get guns too? I would say no.
Another issue; why not restore legal gun ownership to violent felon parolees? [Making a strawman argument here] If they are safe enough to release early, aren't they eligible to get guns too? I would say no.
fjolnirsson
Member
Nope. The just and fair alternative is to restore rights upon release of a prisoner. As long as he's been punished, and paid his debt, and is safe to release.
If he isn't safe to release, don't let the pos out! If a man can't be trusted, don't let him out. How many different ways can I say it? If a man can't be trusted with a gun, don't release him from prison, 'cause he will get one.
If he's too dangerous to have a gun, why is he out of prison? That is bull$$$$! Some people will never reform. Kill them, don't let them go free.
I just don't understand. Either a man is a full citizen again, safe to be on the sreet, or he isn't. What's the problem with allowing him to defend himself? If a felon is going to obey the law, why not allow him a gun? If he isn't to be trusted, no law will keep him from owning one.
I guess I'm not enlightened enough to understand this whole thing. But then again, I think we should still hang people in the town square.
And, I think car thieves should be hung, just like horse thieves used to be.
Jim Diver
Member
Self defense is a universal right... They paid thier debit to society.. I would support a 10 year loss of firearms rights, but forever is just not right.
fjolnirsson
Member
It seems the 2nd amendment only counts when it works in ones favor....
Freedom comes with risks, people.
Not allowing felons to own guns creates a sub-standard citizen class. It thereby sets the stage for adding more people to the list. If rights can be abridged for one type of citizen, it paves the way for everyone to lose their rights.
It's a dangerous precedent.
Hkmp5sd
Member
There is a provision in federal law that allows felons to petition the director of ATF for "relief from disabilities" and regain their ability to own firearms. Only problem is that since Clinton took office back in 1992, ATF's budget has not allocated funds for anyone to process the paperwork and do the checks required for the application to be approved.
mercedesrules
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,010
I respect everyone's opinion, but if a right can be taken away, it is not "inalienable". 
To the question: Yes.
MR
To the question: Yes.
MR
- Status
