Who should be able to have guns?
- Thread starter LkWinnipesaukee
- Start date
- Status
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
You have no right of self defense in jail? Right to due process? Etc?
The Drew
Member
The point of the "they shouldn't be out of prison" argument is that nobody can really stop someone from reoffending once released from prison. It is also a strong argument FOR escalation of sentencing something like 3 strikes and you're out laws.
The bottom line is that some people are young and stupid and do stupid things. If they pay their debt to society, they should come out with a clean slate with the exception that if they reoffend their sentence should be MUCH stiffer.
If we don't do something like that, we get what we have. Feel good laws that won't allow convicted felons to legally own weapons but they get them anyway... And repeat offenders who keep perpetrating the same crimes because they don't fear the consequences.
The bottom line is that some people are young and stupid and do stupid things. If they pay their debt to society, they should come out with a clean slate with the exception that if they reoffend their sentence should be MUCH stiffer.
If we don't do something like that, we get what we have. Feel good laws that won't allow convicted felons to legally own weapons but they get them anyway... And repeat offenders who keep perpetrating the same crimes because they don't fear the consequences.
ctdonath
Member
Not uncommon, and many drive without a driver's licence.
"Allowing"? Gov't only finds out after said molester has moved, and said gov't finds out despite him not complying with the sex offender registration law.
And even when he's "not allowed" to live next to that school, he still just wanders the 1000 feet or so over there and does his next dirty deed anyway - so what good is that law?
Said hacker heads to nearest library and signs in. What's to stop him?
C'mon ... most of these feel-good "we won't let criminals do X" laws only kick in after said criminal has already done the next crime. So why bother? Better to let other citizens deal with the situation, rather than taking away the rights of the law-abiding so the gov't can pretend to do something about it, and only actually do something after the next crime is committed.
WayneConrad
Member
What scares you more?
In the end, the question is what scares you more? Murderers, terrorists, and drug dealers, or strong central government?
People are awful at evalating risks. They embrace a greater danger in an attempt to save themselves from a lesser danger.
In the end, the question is what scares you more? Murderers, terrorists, and drug dealers, or strong central government?
People are awful at evalating risks. They embrace a greater danger in an attempt to save themselves from a lesser danger.
Twycross
Member
It's kind of interesting. When the antis talk about banning all guns we say that it won't work because people who want them will get them no matter what.
But when we talk about banning guns just for certain people we assume that it will work fine.
But when we talk about banning guns just for certain people we assume that it will work fine.
My involvement in this thread started when I was attempting to make only two points. They are:
1) No right is absolute
2) Conviceted felons (especially violent ones) should never be legally allowed to own firearms.
I have proven point one and point two is up to your opinion. I would really stop yourself before the kneejerk "of course they should! Its their right" reaction gets posted.
1) No right is absolute
2) Conviceted felons (especially violent ones) should never be legally allowed to own firearms.
I have proven point one and point two is up to your opinion. I would really stop yourself before the kneejerk "of course they should! Its their right" reaction gets posted.
Here in Florida they have the 10/20/life law. If you are a convicted felon and you touch a firearm its 10 years. Discharge one and its twenty. Shoot someone and its life. This is a very gun friendly state so some conservatives must agree that felons shouldnt have guns. While it may not be totally effective it certainly makes some people think twice about committing a second major firearms related offense. Now just to contradict myself I will say that it did not stop that ****head kid who worked for me blowing the brains out of my other employee two months ago in my store.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I have two questions:
Should a convicted child molestor be allowed to work in a nursery school after he gets out of prison?
And for those who think he should, would you send your child to that nursery school?
Should a convicted child molestor be allowed to work in a nursery school after he gets out of prison?
And for those who think he should, would you send your child to that nursery school?
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
The founders were clear that our rights come from an all-powerful God and not from an all-powerful government.
Thomas Jefferson said, "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath?"
The foundation of our government was that the individual rights of citizens are based on the existence of a God who grants those rights.
Government is not the source of absolute rights. The only source of absolute rights has to come from something above and beyond humans and their governments (God). Quite often the SCOTUS ignores those rights.
You are straying from what the constitution says. Stick to it. I could provide verse after verse of founding father quotes to prove any point but I thought we were discussing constitutional rights.
BTW- Dont put too much stock into TJ's god given rights position. The guy owned people.
BTW- Dont put too much stock into TJ's god given rights position. The guy owned people.
jerkface11
Member
As i've said before. IF THEY CAN'T BE TRUSTED DON'T LET THEM OUT OF PRISON. Letting a convicted murderer out of prison and then saying he can't own a gun is saying that you're letting him out but you think he might do it again. So why let him out? As for letting convicted child molesters work at a daycare center ***?? Why should they EVER see the light of day again?
Jax, this is out of context. You don't have to have a prior felony conviction. A prior felony only applies to a felon in possesion which is a min/mand. 3 year prison sentence. The correct context should be, when convicted of certain felonies with the possession and/or use of a firearm, including felony drug possession, the 10/20/life sentence applies. See this topic to see how it applies to the average citizen.
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
More specifically we are talking about the Bill of Rights. I know my rights are God Given. Yours may be Government Given. I'd rather have mine.
CAnnoneer
Member
Some of you guys argue on the basis of "trust". But who decides who is trustworthy to be released or not? Gov? That's a very dangerous path, because it is based on "pre-emptive" enforcement. Stop and think what that would mean.
You serve out your sentence, your debt to the rest of us is repaid. Now be out and enjoy full freedoms. What crimes should carry what penalties is an entirely different question.
You serve out your sentence, your debt to the rest of us is repaid. Now be out and enjoy full freedoms. What crimes should carry what penalties is an entirely different question.
CAnnoneer
Member
double post
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Where does it say a convicted child molester has any rights except the right to keep and bear arms? Where does it say that in any of the BoR's? Someone has already said, it is unrealistic to keep this scum in prison for life, like we should, but 5/10/20/life parole is possible and would control these violent felons to the best extent that is possible and this wouldn't be a violation of the 2nd because the debt to society ends upon full payment of sentence.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
JaxNovice
Certain things can be DEPRIVED after due process of law, but certainly not rescinded, and for sure no rights can ever be rescinded. "Rescind" and "Deprived" do not mean the same thing, and are not even synonymous.
Correct. But, government only has access to powers specifically granted to it. Government need not be prohibited from making any such provisions.
1) Free or in prison, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is inalienable. A person may be deprived the exercise of a right after due process, but upon the completion of due process which would include any term of incarceration, free exercise of a right would recommence upon the payment of the debt to society. If said person cannot be trusted with the free exercise of a right as determined with due process, that person should remain incarcerated.
As for ANY right being absolute, any and all rights are absolute. Thomas Jefferson's quote,
You have the right to peaceably assemble. It is absolute. You do not have the right to assemble unpeacefully. You don't have the right to assemble in any fashion that would not be peaceful. Just as you don't have a right to commit crime, you wouldn't have the right to assemble to commit crime.
2) Preventing convicted felons (especially violent ones) from owning firearms(or any other weapon) is unenforceable. Keeping them locked up will deny them almost all access to them until they can be trusted with them. There is no other way to keep violent people from exacting violence upon the general public. Executing violent convicted felons is the only way to prevent them from exacting their violence in prison, or escaping and exacting violence upon the general public.
Had that violent felon been kept in jail, your employee might be alive today. See that part of your statement I highlighted in bold? Why must it take the life of an innocent person to convince society that the proven violent criminal should be put away? Is the criminal's life that much more "valuable" than the life of any innocent victim? If you want something totally effective, keep the violent criminals locked up. To coin a liberal mantra, "If it saves just one life,..."
WayneConrad
I'd say none of the above when compared to a government run amok!
Vern Humphrey
Pedophilia is incurable. Pedophiles should be locked up or institutionalized permanently. I wouldn't even trust one in the custody of a guardian. Secondly, no one has a right to work in a nursery whereas everyone has a right to own arms. It ain't the same thing.
CAnnoneer
It's not "pre-emptive enforcement" when the judicial process has determined the conviction, and the sentence is handed out upon that phase of due process called sentencing, and the weight of the crime and threat to society is assessed in assigning the sentence. That is the consequence of committing the ORIGINAL crime. Just because I have a penis doesn't mean I might rape, or that I have a gun that I might murder. The convicted person has proven his behavior.
Woody
"Gun Control" seeks to put bounds upon, and possibly effect the elimination of the protection of our inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Don't be led astray with the inference that it is "gun" control. It's an attempts to hide the discussion from the strict scrutiny of the Constitution. What is under attack are rights of the people. Guns are inanimate objects; tools of freedom and self defense, primarily. Dehumanizing the discourse by calling it "gun control" or "gun rights" lessens the concern from what the significance is when the discussion is directed at the HUMAN right being infringed. B.E.Wood
.
Certain things can be DEPRIVED after due process of law, but certainly not rescinded, and for sure no rights can ever be rescinded. "Rescind" and "Deprived" do not mean the same thing, and are not even synonymous.
Correct. But, government only has access to powers specifically granted to it. Government need not be prohibited from making any such provisions.
1) Free or in prison, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is inalienable. A person may be deprived the exercise of a right after due process, but upon the completion of due process which would include any term of incarceration, free exercise of a right would recommence upon the payment of the debt to society. If said person cannot be trusted with the free exercise of a right as determined with due process, that person should remain incarcerated.
As for ANY right being absolute, any and all rights are absolute. Thomas Jefferson's quote,
, says it all. Any and all of our rights are absolute within the bounds where they exist up to the bounds of someone else's rights. Beyond those bounds you have no right. Therefore, the rights you do have are absolute.
You have the right to peaceably assemble. It is absolute. You do not have the right to assemble unpeacefully. You don't have the right to assemble in any fashion that would not be peaceful. Just as you don't have a right to commit crime, you wouldn't have the right to assemble to commit crime.
2) Preventing convicted felons (especially violent ones) from owning firearms(or any other weapon) is unenforceable. Keeping them locked up will deny them almost all access to them until they can be trusted with them. There is no other way to keep violent people from exacting violence upon the general public. Executing violent convicted felons is the only way to prevent them from exacting their violence in prison, or escaping and exacting violence upon the general public.
Had that violent felon been kept in jail, your employee might be alive today. See that part of your statement I highlighted in bold? Why must it take the life of an innocent person to convince society that the proven violent criminal should be put away? Is the criminal's life that much more "valuable" than the life of any innocent victim? If you want something totally effective, keep the violent criminals locked up. To coin a liberal mantra, "If it saves just one life,..."
WayneConrad
I'd say none of the above when compared to a government run amok!
Vern Humphrey
Pedophilia is incurable. Pedophiles should be locked up or institutionalized permanently. I wouldn't even trust one in the custody of a guardian. Secondly, no one has a right to work in a nursery whereas everyone has a right to own arms. It ain't the same thing.
CAnnoneer
It's not "pre-emptive enforcement" when the judicial process has determined the conviction, and the sentence is handed out upon that phase of due process called sentencing, and the weight of the crime and threat to society is assessed in assigning the sentence. That is the consequence of committing the ORIGINAL crime. Just because I have a penis doesn't mean I might rape, or that I have a gun that I might murder. The convicted person has proven his behavior.
Woody
"Gun Control" seeks to put bounds upon, and possibly effect the elimination of the protection of our inalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Don't be led astray with the inference that it is "gun" control. It's an attempts to hide the discussion from the strict scrutiny of the Constitution. What is under attack are rights of the people. Guns are inanimate objects; tools of freedom and self defense, primarily. Dehumanizing the discourse by calling it "gun control" or "gun rights" lessens the concern from what the significance is when the discussion is directed at the HUMAN right being infringed. B.E.Wood
.
Woody, I like your points. Very well researched and thought out. However, I made the point before that a citizen rights can be rescinded. This is accomplished via state sanctioned execution. It is the basis of my position. If the government can take away all of your rights by killing a citizen, it leaves the rest of our rights in jeapordy.
Felons and firearms
Much of this thread is built upon a premise which may be subject to question, namely that to prohibit a convicted felon to possess firearms amounts to wrongly, or unfairly, if you prefer, inflicting an additional punishment upon a person after he has “served his time,” or “paid his debt to society.”
One might suggest, on the other hand, that this prohibition is as much a part of his debt to society for his commission of what society calls a serious crime as was the rest of his sentence, be the latter a period of confinement, a fine, probation, or whatever.
Requiring a convicted sex offender to register his whereabouts with the authorities, and having his whereabouts made a matter of public record, might also, for example, be considered a part of his debt to society for the commission of a grave offense against the standards society demands of its members.
Some might argue that additional sanctions such as these are the result of society having recognized the demonstrated reality of the likelihood of a person becoming a repeat offender and taking steps to discourage repeat offenses short of execution or imprisonment for life.
I am not pleading a cause; I do not suggest that there are not other ways of approaching a perceived problem; I do not suggest that these additional sanctions accomplish society’s goal; I am not discussing the Second Amendment. I only suggest that if the fundamental foundation of an argument is faulty the whole argument falls with the foundation.
Much of this thread is built upon a premise which may be subject to question, namely that to prohibit a convicted felon to possess firearms amounts to wrongly, or unfairly, if you prefer, inflicting an additional punishment upon a person after he has “served his time,” or “paid his debt to society.”
One might suggest, on the other hand, that this prohibition is as much a part of his debt to society for his commission of what society calls a serious crime as was the rest of his sentence, be the latter a period of confinement, a fine, probation, or whatever.
Requiring a convicted sex offender to register his whereabouts with the authorities, and having his whereabouts made a matter of public record, might also, for example, be considered a part of his debt to society for the commission of a grave offense against the standards society demands of its members.
Some might argue that additional sanctions such as these are the result of society having recognized the demonstrated reality of the likelihood of a person becoming a repeat offender and taking steps to discourage repeat offenses short of execution or imprisonment for life.
I am not pleading a cause; I do not suggest that there are not other ways of approaching a perceived problem; I do not suggest that these additional sanctions accomplish society’s goal; I am not discussing the Second Amendment. I only suggest that if the fundamental foundation of an argument is faulty the whole argument falls with the foundation.
ctdonath
Member
Understood; a sentence need not be imprisonment only, it can (as in parole) be an agreement to let the convicted join society but under certain restrictions, with resumption of incarceration if those restrictions are violated.
The problem with that is enforcement. Prohibiting felons from owning guns, or sex offenders from approaching certain locations or moving without registration, etc. all presume the gov't can know. I'd wager that one of the most heavily armed identifiable groups in society IS felons, and that the number of convicted-and-released pedophiles within prohibited X feet of a school etc. is astoundingly high. While released on certain conditions, the conditions are practically unenforceable until the released convict does something much worse with that which he wasn't supposed to have/do.
The problem with that is enforcement. Prohibiting felons from owning guns, or sex offenders from approaching certain locations or moving without registration, etc. all presume the gov't can know. I'd wager that one of the most heavily armed identifiable groups in society IS felons, and that the number of convicted-and-released pedophiles within prohibited X feet of a school etc. is astoundingly high. While released on certain conditions, the conditions are practically unenforceable until the released convict does something much worse with that which he wasn't supposed to have/do.
ConstitutionCowboy
member
Ctdonath Wrote:
Exactly right. In my book, that makes those in government culpable in any repeat crime committed by any violent felon who has been released into society. Each and every victim of a repeat offender is more than a victim of the criminal, (s)he is a victim of the rotten system and those in charge of it. I'm not talking parole boards, judges, and the like. I'm talking legislators that make the laws and rules that make these heinous releases possible.
So, before we pretty up any more parks, before we build any more bridges to nowhere, before we sequester any more land to "protect the environment", and before we study any mating habits of some obscure tree rat, let's provide for our safety and keep these undesirable and conscious-less people locked up or executed. I don't by that "lack of space in prison" for them. Make space.
Do that, and we won't need our FFL's to do the job of law enforcement, we won't need to "keep track" of pedophiles, or worry so much about who in the heck lives next door.
As of right now, society is made to suffer at the lack of proper confinement of ne'er-do-wells. THEY committed the crimes, so make THEM pay, not the rest of us. Turning them loose on society and making it difficult for everyone to arm themselves against these criminals - to supposedly make it harder for these criminals to get guns - is ludicrous! Criminals get guns anyway, and with a lot less hassle than the law abiding are forced to endure!
It just doesn't make sense - unless the purpose is to make it more and more difficult until it becomes impossible for the law abiding to obtain weapons to lessen the burden on some future dictatorship.....
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. B.E.Wood
Exactly right. In my book, that makes those in government culpable in any repeat crime committed by any violent felon who has been released into society. Each and every victim of a repeat offender is more than a victim of the criminal, (s)he is a victim of the rotten system and those in charge of it. I'm not talking parole boards, judges, and the like. I'm talking legislators that make the laws and rules that make these heinous releases possible.
So, before we pretty up any more parks, before we build any more bridges to nowhere, before we sequester any more land to "protect the environment", and before we study any mating habits of some obscure tree rat, let's provide for our safety and keep these undesirable and conscious-less people locked up or executed. I don't by that "lack of space in prison" for them. Make space.
Do that, and we won't need our FFL's to do the job of law enforcement, we won't need to "keep track" of pedophiles, or worry so much about who in the heck lives next door.
As of right now, society is made to suffer at the lack of proper confinement of ne'er-do-wells. THEY committed the crimes, so make THEM pay, not the rest of us. Turning them loose on society and making it difficult for everyone to arm themselves against these criminals - to supposedly make it harder for these criminals to get guns - is ludicrous! Criminals get guns anyway, and with a lot less hassle than the law abiding are forced to endure!
It just doesn't make sense - unless the purpose is to make it more and more difficult until it becomes impossible for the law abiding to obtain weapons to lessen the burden on some future dictatorship.....
Woody
Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. B.E.Wood
- Status
Similar threads
