kmw1954
Member
So what is my way of thinking? I just asked a question that you responded to which I am still uncertain of your implications.
Your opinion on felons owning guns?
- Thread starter KarateHottie93
- Start date
- Status
So what is my way of thinking? I just asked a question that you responded to which I am still uncertain of your implications.
crstrode
Member
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2008
- Messages
- 363
Same here - but worse.My wife thinks since I was "present" when bad things happened during our 28 years of marriage, I am guilty ...
My wife was 1500 miles away on a road trip while I held down the home front. Her brother crashed the car and because I didn't go with them the crash was my fault.
Go figure.
jrmiddleton425
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2011
- Messages
- 663
The list of conditions that disqualify a person a person from possessing a firearm in the USA, are spelled out in black and white on the 4473 form.
If someone can't be bothered to comply with something as simple as that, I have no problem with said person being a prohibited person.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: with that said, I personally know two convicted felons who (legally) own guns.
Aside from those two people, my mother's cousin got a dishonorable discharge from the Army and did without owning a gun for over 40 years, until he got his discharge upgraded 5-6 years ago.
So at the same time, I have no problem with there being a process for a prohibited person to get their rights restored.
If someone can't be bothered to comply with something as simple as that, I have no problem with said person being a prohibited person.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit: with that said, I personally know two convicted felons who (legally) own guns.
Aside from those two people, my mother's cousin got a dishonorable discharge from the Army and did without owning a gun for over 40 years, until he got his discharge upgraded 5-6 years ago.
So at the same time, I have no problem with there being a process for a prohibited person to get their rights restored.
Last edited:
Here is another angle :
At a time when 2nd Amendment rights are under assault from many directions , I'll be darned if I'd stick my neck out lobbying for "arming convicted felons". And if you think that I phrased that in an inflammatory manner - just think of the verbiage the antis would use.
At a time when 2nd Amendment rights are under assault from many directions , I'll be darned if I'd stick my neck out lobbying for "arming convicted felons". And if you think that I phrased that in an inflammatory manner - just think of the verbiage the antis would use.
Atavar
Member
This is untrue and just rabble rousing. He can petition the court to have his gun rights restored.
Atavar
Member
[QUOTE="kmw1954, post: 12108505, member: 251120"
A first time, one time offender should be restored after completing whatever punishment was doled out. Repeat and Habitual offender No way.
[/QUOTE]
So what you are saying in effect is that felons who have raped or murdered less than two people should be armed?
A first time, one time offender should be restored after completing whatever punishment was doled out. Repeat and Habitual offender No way.
[/QUOTE]
So what you are saying in effect is that felons who have raped or murdered less than two people should be armed?
CherokeeGunslinger
Member
I don't like drug dealers, and I definitely don't like the fact that hardcore drugs exist. There are people in my family that decided to do hardcore drugs and they suffered for it, so don't think I'm coming from a position of softness. That being said, I see no reason to disenfranchise them. I've talked to both sides of that proverbial coin and I've figured out that most drug dealers aren't some twisted psychopaths. It all boils down to the fact that drug dealers provide goods to their customers.
Let me ask you a question: do you really think we're getting anywhere by busting down drug dealers' doors with armored vehicles and automatic rifles? We've been doing that since the Nixon administration and it isn't working. Catch, release, disenfranchise, it doesn't work.
Such questions have led me to, among other things, the idea that people convicted of drug dealing shouldn't be disenfranchised. Punishment is another debate to me and it's not pertinent to this thread, but if we're going to punish drug dealers, disenfranchising them will just make them way more likely to reoffend and go back to dealing drugs.
An iron fist makes many issues worse.
CherokeeGunslinger
Member
So what you are saying in effect is that felons who have raped or murdered less than two people should be armed?[/QUOTE]
Please don't strawman.
CherokeeGunslinger
Member
Didn't you mock people for their "deep-seated convictions" and then call all drug dealers evil? That sounds deeply judgmental. From my point of view, it looks like you find difficulty in having a civil discussion on the matter.
And if what I said offended you, then I think that just proves my point. Not everything is black and white. Your experiences are unique to you. Your anecdotal doesn't discount the fact that there are millions of people in our nation that have different experiences and live in different circumstances than you do. Your point of view is one of many, and it's no more special than the others. Instead of calling people evil for making bad decisions, maybe you should ask them why they made those decisions. There are genuinely evil people in the world, but labeling large parts of society as evil is like being stuck in 1980s evangelical America. If that attitude still prevailed, we'd still have a lot of murders, rapes, robberies and kidnappings unsolved because some old-school idiot at the FBI said, "we don't need to look at it from another angle, they're just born evil! Period!"
And selling to children? Not even going to dignify that with a response.
As for addicts, that's a mixed bag. Some started out because of opioid prescriptions, some started out on thrir own, but it's highly hypocritical to argue that drug dealers are just evil while addicts are not responsible for their choices.
Last edited:
LiveLife
Member
So do you also believe that new/younger drivers should lose their license if they cause an accident? You know, because new/younger drivers may not be able to learn to become safe drivers ...
Consider that some of the felons made their mistakes when they were young and stupid. And as they got older, may have learned the mistakes of their younger days to become better persons. Should they pay for their mistakes of younger years for the rest of their lives?
Last edited:
DustyGmt
Member
I don't generally rouse, and I never under any circumstances "rabble rouse". Its a fact that if he goes in to purchase a gun he will be unceremoniously denied purchase as a direct result of the charge he picked up, so no, not untrue.
You can play semantics all you want, and by your logic I guess anybody can petition the courts for anything. That is not the issue we are talking about here. We are talking about "prohibited persons", namely felons but this would extend to some misdemeanors and domestic abuse convictions. You probably already know that.
CherokeeGunslinger
Member
Don't bother. I don't think he's here to have a civil discussion with you.
db_tanker
Member
You have to have a gauge. There are differing levels of criminal and as such there should be paths to show that rehabilitation has occurred.
I know many around here SAY they walk the path of the righteous, and then say no one who is a felon can do this. Hypocrisy much? That isn't to inflame or am I even pointing fingers, simply making a statement. I am guilty of it as well when I was younger. As I have gotten older I judge less and listen more to what others have to say. As such, I've learned that many should have a second chance.
As such, there should be a path to restoration of ALL rights. Should it be an easy path? NOPE. But there should be one.
MTCW
D
I know many around here SAY they walk the path of the righteous, and then say no one who is a felon can do this. Hypocrisy much? That isn't to inflame or am I even pointing fingers, simply making a statement. I am guilty of it as well when I was younger. As I have gotten older I judge less and listen more to what others have to say. As such, I've learned that many should have a second chance.
As such, there should be a path to restoration of ALL rights. Should it be an easy path? NOPE. But there should be one.
MTCW
D
CherokeeGunslinger
Member
I don't agree with your last statement, as I'm of the belief that rights should be restored upon release from prison, but I do applaud you for being more emotionally mature and understanding than a lot of people. Bravo, good sir. Take my like.
So , arming said drug dealers will improve their self esteem and therefor make them more likely to become law abiding contributors to society?
CherokeeGunslinger
Member
You're strawmanning. Nobody is saying that we should arm drug dealers. What is being said is that criminals, including those convicted of drug dealing, will be much more likely to reoffend if stripped of their rights upon release.
The answer to the first question depends on the circumstances.So do you also believe that new/younger drivers should lose their license if they cause an accident? You know, because new/younger drivers may not be able to learn to become safe drivers ...
Consider that some of the felons made their mistakes when they were young and stupid. And as they got older, may have learned the mistakes of their younger days to become better persons. Should they pay for their mistakes of younger years for the rest of their lives?
The answer to the second question is I truly believe people are well formed early in life. Felons have serious judgement problems often in combination with other issues. So the answer to that one is yes.
Madcap_Magician
Member
I can't imagine that the antis will use more inflammatory language than has already been used here.
kmw1954
Member
So what you are saying in effect is that felons who have raped or murdered less than two people should be armed?[/QUOTE]
Try making sense, what has the number of raped or murdered have to do with my comment? Then answer my question about drunk drivers killing people!
CherokeeGunslinger
Member
Most convicted felons I know have enough emotional maturity to understand that wearing the term "judgmental" as a badge of honor is itself emotionally immature.
Atavar
Member
please back up your statements with evidence of people in positions of authority doing that. Or are you just saying things to raise rabble?
Atavar
Member
Try making sense, what has the number of raped or murdered have to do with my comment? Then answer my question about drunk drivers killing people![/QUOTE]
You are the one who said one time offenders should get their guns back but not repeat offenders. I do understand why killing one person is ok but not two.
kmw1954
Member
You are the one who said one time offenders should get their guns back but not repeat offenders. I do understand why killing one person is ok but not two.[/QUOTE]
Here, clearly stated, My position is those convicted of Rape, Murder, Child Molestation should be immediately taken out and summarily executed, no appeals. How that! If you cannot be trusted to be out in society then you forfeit your existence in society.
Please state your case and move on. These are opinions, viewpoints and positions. We are not defending a thesis. If we can resist the opportunity to take shots at each other, maybe others will weigh in. If it comes down to "does so--does not" the thread is of no further value.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
