We know gun control doesn't work but...

[glummer]

Actually , happens quite often . right now in my state , a woman who stole $100000 while working for a town has already paid back a big chunk by selling her house . She'll spend time in jail , then once out , has to continue to pay back what she stole .

That happens around here, too. Always seems to be embezzlers, particularly gov’t employees, for some reason. But most people serving time are not embezzlers.

Now violent crimes (murder , rape , etc ) cannot be "paid back" per se , but what are murderers and rapist doing getting out of jail in the first place ?

You want life sentences for rape, or assault? Who is going to pay for it? Not the criminals, that’s for sure.

Now , as far as tax payer dollars for inmate upkeep . Well, put em to work "earning" their 3 hots and a cot instead of giving them a gym and TV room .

Sounds good to me, if you can make it work.

 

[Zundfolge]

I think the legal concept we're talking about here is called Prior Restraint.

The idea being that government steps in and restricts your non-criminal behavior because you either fit a predetermined profile of a would-be [insert criminal type here] or they (government) fear that anyone who engages in this non-criminal behavior is just a step away from the criminal behavior.

A perfect example is gun control laws that say if you are part of a certain subclass of citizenry (felons, wife beaters, drug addicts, etc) you are not allowed to posses a firearm (an otherwise legal endeavor) because you MIGHT be more likely than someone else to do something bad with it.

In my not so humble opinion, the entire concept of Prior Restraint has no place in a free society.

You should punish people for what they DO, not what they MIGHT DO. Any attempt at Prior Restraint is a step toward a police state.

 

[ptmmatssc]

Zundfolge , I agree . My dad happens to be a felon which prohibits him from owning firearms and even prevents him from visiting family in canada.He has zero violent offenses on his record and was deemed no threat and sent to a minimum security fed pen . So then why is he denied his RKBA now that he's out?

A perfect example is gun control laws that say if you are part of a certain subclass of citizenry (felons, wife beaters, drug addicts, etc) you are not allowed to posses a firearm (an otherwise legal endeavor) because you MIGHT be more likely than someone else to do something bad with it.

Funny how things that the gov deem "illegal" (drug use etc) prevent firearm ownership , yet , you can be popping prescription drugs and drinking a 1/2 gallon of hooch a day and that's just dandy . I've yet to come across a single stoner that was a "violent" person (other then to a bag of doritos) , yet have seen more drunks taking swings at the drop of a hat . But the drunk can own a gun while the stoner has to suffice with a pointy stick .

You should punish people for what they DO, not what they MIGHT DO. Any attempt at Prior Restraint is a step toward a police state.

yup

 

[Owen Sparks]

Conceder this. If you were in at a public event like a concert, football game or in a bar and caused trouble you would expect be forcibly ejected from the premises.

Why not deport convicted violent felons to some obscure third world destination AFTER they have done their time? The US only covers about five percent of the earths surface so this would be immanently doable. Especially if taking former US criminals was contingent on receiving more foreign aid.

Just a thought, OS

 

[glummer]

In my not so humble opinion, the entire concept of Prior Restraint has no place in a free society.

You should punish people for what they DO, not what they MIGHT DO. Any attempt at Prior Restraint is a step toward a police state.

Generally, I agree with you, but I think you harm your argument by pushing it to extremes, with “entire concept” and “(a)ny attempt”. After all, if you shoot a robber who is threatening you with a weapon, aren’t you acting on the basis of what he MIGHT do? You don’t have to wait until he DOES hurt you, do you?
I’d suggest it’s more a matter of the weight of the evidence for future harm. “Possible”, or “conceivable”, or even “very likely” is not good enough – to be tolerable in a free society, you need something closer to “beyond a reasonable doubt.” And something like well-established due-process procedures for defining/appealing the restrictions.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Although your question is a noble one I don’t think this is a feasible scenario because predetermining who is going to commit a crime (based on past criminal records) goes against America’s key criminal code, which is presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

If somebody commits a crime that justifies losing their right to bear arms, then they shouldn't be allowed in public. They belong in jail.

Does that make sense to anybody else?