To those who would deny rights to ex-cons

Status
Not open for further replies.
Huh?

Moderators, I am sorry for any digression, I just don't understand.
pcosmar said in reference to how many inmates he knew admitted their crimes fully.
Many, most of the worst were proud of it.
were they proud of their crimes or did they admit to any and all of their crimes and were proud of that fact? If they were proud of their crimes then I think that speaks volumes about why they shouldn't be allowed to own guns. If they were proud of admitting their crimes to the authorities then I don't understand this next quote.
Many, I knew some good people inside. They were there because of bad laws or bad lawyers.
If they admitted their guilt even a great lawyer couldn't help them much. I agree that there are some bad laws but that doesn't mean that we get to choose which ones we can be prosecuted for if we break them.
Some were even found to be innocent after a few years.
Then they should have had all of their rights returned to them.
It was stated that only criminals commit crime. That is a false assumption.
First , I didn't state that, and second, a person becomes a criminal when they break a law, they become a convict when they are convicted. So by definition, people become criminal when they ......commit a crime.
 
I said I knew some who were proud of their criminal life. There are those, Sociopaths, Gangsta Wannabes, Arian Nation and others. Some of those I never want to see again. They are around, inside and out. They are part of the reason I would like to be armed.
There are others, a great many, that though they commited some infraction, are not criminally intent.
There are others that should have never been brought to trial.
Just as not ALL LE are JBT. There are some(many) that are good people, and deserve to treated as such.
You said anyone who commits a crime is a criminal.
Ok, But you don't want to take that to it's logical conclusion.
Traffic violation, littering, spiting on the sidewalk.
How about an accident, where someone is killed (manslaughter)?
Not all those in Prison are the hard core criminals some would paint them as. There are some, but not all, not even most.
 
Just weighing in:

Prohibitions on non-mala-in-se activities either are unjust or don't work. Most often, they're both.

It cannot be concluded that a convict values his life less than someone else--or that he should. If he is free, he should have his rights intact. I see an exception for short parole factors, but even that is problematic.

If Americans were really up on their rights (which, by definition, include responsibilities), this wouldn't be so problematic, as everyone would be armed, and repeat offenders would be extinct sooner than later.
 
1. You are a sociopath that cannot be trusted in society in any condition, and therefore should NEVER be in that society again.

2. You have paid your debt to society and are free to join it as a citizen with full rights and privileges.


Anything between those is dangerous terrritory.

I agree completely.

1st We have been so successful with the idea of making it illegal for a felon to have a weapon haven't we? :rolleyes:

2nd. People bound and determined to hurt someone will find a way to do so with or without a gun. Gas and a lighter, waiting in their car till the right or right number of victims gather, fertilizer bomb, bat, sword, knife, club, poison etc.

If you are really a danger to society then you don't belong on the street! All the other stuff is just window dressing to make the sheep feel better! :banghead:
 
Most of the examples of traffic violations, spitting on the sidewalk, etc are not criminal offenses in most jurisdictions.

In fact in most states most traffic violations have been De-criminalize.

Then you have misdemeanors and Felonies.

Trying to put everyone in the "criminal" category ain't going to work. the vast majority of Americans ARE NOT CRIMINALS.

Convicted Felons go to prison. They are criminals, all convicted Felons are criminals bar none. When they are released, they are still convicted Felons. If society chooses to we can make a legal definition of Dangerous & violent vs non-Dangerous and violent and respond and restrict their "rights" to varying degrees.

Often and I do mean often, the charge an inmate is serving under is less than the crime. Why, because prosecutors are lazy too. Cut the deal and get to the bar.

While in prison many criminals cop to "bigger" crimes that they in fact committed and/or were convicted of. They do it for stature, power, ego.

We had a rule. Never underestimate the stupidity of a Criminal. Don't trust any criminal, and never trust a trustee.

pcosmar: Your statement of Missouri law did not show a contradiction of policy. I thought the Missouri law made sense.

As to Ambrose: The assumptions in the article quoted are just that assumptions about those of us that disagree with his opinion. Not any facts.

One other piece of advice when dealing with Criminals. They will not stop arguing to prove they are right or to get their way. Pay attention to many of the arguments here. They say more about the person making them, than any sense of practical logic.

Be on the look out for rationalizations vs rational arguments.

Go figure.

Fred
 
Felons Smarter Than Liberals

This latest article by Coulter is about Lott's book on crime.

Here you go folks.

go figure.

Fred


Felons Smarter Than Liberals


By: Ann Coulter

Just in time for the Fourth of July, John Lott, author of the groundbreaking 1998 book "More Guns, Less Crime," has released another amazing book: "Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don't." This book provides studies and analysis proving that your every right-wing instinct is based on sound economic analysis.

To wit:

— Women shouldn't vote: "What changed ... that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage."

— Fox News Channel isn't conservative: "Even employees of Fox News, which is widely regarded as a conservative channel, donate 81 percent of their contributions to Democrats."

— Public schools are government re-education camps: "(P)ublic education was actually designed to spread government-approved values."

— Nothing good has come from abortion: "(A)bortion, in fact, increases crime."

— Felons vote Democrat: "Remarkably, it looks as if virtually all felons are Democrats."

To make your flights even more enjoyable this summer, consider this interesting incentive system described by Lott: "To receive disability benefits due to job-related stress, air traffic controllers must present a well-documented stressful incident — a collision or close call — that has caused a deterioration in their performance. Unsurprisingly, when it became easier to file for disability, flights suddenly started experiencing more 'close calls.'"

Say, wouldn't it be even more stressful, deserving of a greater disability payment, if the near-miss involved an Iranian Air jet?

Lott shows that there are pretty clear answers to what lowers the crime rate, what increases the crime rate and what doesn't have any effect at all. Despite their popularity as explanations for the remarkable drop in crime in the '90s, the aging of the population and the enforcement of quality-of-life crimes both had virtually no effect.

What did work was higher arrest and conviction rates, concealed-carry laws and the reinstitution of the death penalty. "Generally, the studies found," Lott writes, "that each execution saved the lives of roughly 15 to 18 potential murder victims." So basically, there's a much bigger death penalty for having no death penalty.

Meanwhile, gun locks and gun self-storage laws lead to more deaths, for the obvious reason that if the owner can't get to his gun in time, the beneficial effect of having a gun is lost. Lott also shows that crime skyrocketed in cities that implemented affirmative action policies that lowered allegedly "biased" and "irrelevant" tests for cops.

Speaking of crime, there's even something for Paris Hilton in this book! Lott says that "when we analyze the overall consequences a criminal faces after conviction, we find a surprising result: Rich criminals face disproportionately high penalties."

The Los Angeles Times recently did an analysis of jail sentences for Hilton's precise offense: i.e., driving with a suspended license after being arrested for drunk driving. The majority of these offenders served four days, exactly what Hilton got — until she was returned to prison. By serving her full 23 days, Hilton served more time than 80 percent of people arrested for the same offense.

In addition to losing their reputations, their inheritances and generally their spouses, according to Lott, wealthy felons also earn less money post-conviction than poor defendants. Not relative to their prior salaries, but in direct comparison. "Amazingly," Lott says, "after controlling for a variety of social and demographic factors, wealthier ex–convicts on average earn a lower salary after their conviction than poorer ex-convicts."

Let's hope so. Felons are usually Democrats. As Lott notes: "Michael Milken, Martha Stewart and Leona Helmsley share something in common besides being convicted felons — they are all Democrats. While their wealth sets them apart from the typical felon, their party registration is the same as most former convicts."

I believe this point was subtly highlighted when Willie Horton told the press in 1988 that of course he supported Michael Dukakis for president. "According to academic studies," Lott says, "from 1972 to 1996, on average, 80 percent of felons would have voted Democratic. An overwhelming 93 percent ostensibly would have voted for Bill Clinton in 1996."

This is not because, as you might imagine, blacks have high crime rates and also happen to be overwhelmingly Democratic. Lott compares the voting patterns of felons and nonfelons, controlling for race, age, education level, religious habits, employment, age and country of residence. Wholly apart from all these factors, felons were still more likely to vote Democratic. Indeed, in the 2004 election, Lott says, felons in Washington state "voted exclusively for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry."

With so many felons being Democrats, the party might want to think about changing its mascot from a donkey to a jailbird.

Needless to say, Democrats are neurotically obsessed with restoring the right to vote to felons. But the ex-cons themselves rarely express any interest in regaining this particular right. What ex-cons want is the right to own a gun. "Felons," Lott says, "who frequently live in poor, high-crime neighborhoods, want to be able to defend themselves."

So the evidence is in on that one, too: Preferring the right to bear arms to the right to vote (for choice), convicted felons have a superior value system to liberals.

Click here to read more about Freedomnomics.
 
I think Chieftan made some very solid points.

I understand your views pcosmar, remember you asked for opinions.
 
I understand your views pcosmar, remember you asked for opinions.
By: Ann Coulter
What I think of her views is not High Road.
I have not read Lotts Articles.
I am not, nor ever have been a Democrat.
Many republicans are criminals, convicted or not.
What valid points?
 
I would much rather see the laws surrounding 'felonies' be changed

By 'seeing felony laws changed' I mean I'd like to see felons not get out of prison at all (vertically), but make a felony a much more stringent charge. You'd have to do harm to another person to get a felony, in short summary and simplification of what I'd prefer done.

Of course, that kind of rearrangement of the justice system isn't a possibility, so I'd much rather stick with not allowing felons own firearms.
 
— Felons vote Democrat: "Remarkably, it looks as if virtually all felons are Democrats."

Felons can't vote. Ex-felons can't vote. Maybe you guys should be figuring out why ex-felons can't be trusted to cast a ballot.
 
Felons can't vote. Ex-felons can't vote. Maybe you guys should be figuring out why ex-felons can't be trusted to cast a ballot.

False assumption. Depending on the state , felons can , and do , vote . Here in maine , if your in state prison , felony or not , you can vote while behind bars and when you get out .
 
My rights were restored at the end of my sentence. I vote.
I can also run for public office. I would not run as a Democrat.
I have been called for jury duty, though I am excluded upon stating that I have been convicted.
I go to the church of my choice.
I do speak my mind.
I cannot legally buy a gun, though people that actually know me would sell me one if I asked. I do not ask. I would not put a friend in that position.
I am fully capable of building one, I do Not.
I could get one by other means. I do not.
I would like my restoration of rights to be recognized. It is Not.
 
IMO, there are very few things that should bar you for life from gun ownership. I think we can agree wanted fugitives should be denied, but what about those who have paid their debt? People who commit check bouncing, white collar crimes should probably not be barred. Probably just certain truly violent offenses such as murder, rape, armed robbery etc. Perhaps an appeal could be had after some many years for certain offenses. But for Domestic Violence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top