|
|
I say as long as they are under supervision of the state (ie, incarcerated) those rights should be suspended, as the responsibility for individual safety shifts to the state.Originally Posted by kssooner
When a person is released from such confines we should not limit their ability to protect themselves. If a person is set into the world, then his debt has been paid, and the expectation is that the person is not guilty of any future crime that MAY be committed.
Even those convicted of violent felonies?
Yes, if we don't trust such persons with a firearm, we should not be releasing them into the public. Either we restructure sentencing, do a better job of making them good citizens while incarcerated, or let them maintain their constitutional rights (of which voting isn't, but I agree should also be reinstated).
If the argument truly is that a gun is merely a tool, should we ban other things that could be used as weapons from felons?
The problem with felons is that they tend to be repeat offenders.
LINK77 percent of felony defendants have at least one prior arrest and 69 percent have multiple prior arrests. 61 percent have at least one conviction and 49 percent have multiple convictions.
35 percent of those charged with felonies have 10 or more prior arrests and another 17 percent have between 5 to 9 arrests, thus 52 percent of charged felons have been arrested and before the courts many times.
40 percent of those charged with burglary and motor vehicle theft have 10 or more arrests. 30 percent of violent offenders have 10 or more prior arrests.
40 percent of all felony convictions serve time in a state prison and 55 percent of those convicted for violent felonies serve time in state prisons. More serve less than six months in county jails.
Analysis: The criminal justice system is dominated by individuals with multiple arrests and multiple convictions. As a variety of criminological research indicates, approximately a third of felony defendants are considered high-risk offenders.
Giving convicted felons the legal right to own a gun is ludicrous, but the law is not going to stop them from posessing a gun, just like it doesn't stop them now.
You mean "restoring" their right. The Constitution "protects" that right, and it is granted by a higher authority than that.
You think we should just suspend due process and such as well?
So back in gun free Chicago Mooch will be grandstanding at the funeral for the 15 year old girl killed in the crossfire of gang violence. No word on if she plans to attend the funerals of the other 40 people murdered that month.
Should someone be able to protect themselves or should they be responsible for their actions. Right now, it seems we have very little in the form of personal responsibility consequences. The consequences of choosing to become a felon are giving up your ability to vote and lawfully own a gun. I don't have a problem with that.
I don't really think that spending time in jail earns you back those rights. There are just too many repeat offenders. Now if you would like to go thru a probationary period of 5 years or so, then I could see letting someone vote or get back the ability to lawfully own a gun.
Ok...restoring a felon's right to own a gun is ludicrous. It has been well established that some constitutional rights are forfeited when convicted of certain crimes. And why are you bringing up due process? That's what one is entitled to when accused of a crime. After conviction,you have to live with the consequences. Are you in favor of allowing a person convicted of multiple dwi's/vehicular homicide a driver's license?
There may be a small number of felons who may well be able to return to society as law abiding citizens and as such may deserve to have their full rights restored. But the data suggests that most felons tend to become repeat offenders. With violent felons leading the pack.
The second amendment seems to be the only constitutional right this pertains to.
Can you imagine striking down freedom of religion to felons? How about freedom of speech. How about we can search and seize anything we want from felons?
Driver's licenses do not equate, they are not constitutionally protected.
I agree with you that recidivism is a problem...lets fix it. Lets make it to where violent offenders are not released until they are capable of doing so without breaking the law again. Lets actually treat these problems instead of just caging people.
Is any crime worthy of losing an inalienable right?
I don't support the death penalty for this reason, and it is the same reason I support full legalization of chemical adulterants and also why felons should get to maintain gun ownership.
Yes there are crimes worthy of losing an inalienable right. I think if you kill a bunch of people in a movie theater, or kids in a school, or ****ually abuse kids, etc., you should lose your rights.
So, if James Holmes is found not guilty by reason of insanity, spends 20 plus years in a mental hospital and then gets out, he should be able to retain his 2nd amendment right?
I think so.... ****UMING there is a process established to allow a person to gain their rights back. I don't really think it should be out of prison/mental institution = free to anything.
I think it should be a process that is so intensive that someone who is willing to jump through the hoops for it should be allowed to do so.
Yep. It is a guarantee of Holmes' citizenship.
Deport him if you want, revoke his citizenship. Short of that, there is no grounds to subvert his right to property.
so killing 12 people is no grounds to lose your right to a gun but I should lose my ability to buy an extended magazine?
You can still buy a gun.
So you really DO support the position that convicted killers should get guns but law-abiding American citizens should have that right legislated to oblivion? That makes no sense good sir.
The following users like this post: tcrb
I don't think it should be "legislated into oblivion", I just don't see it a big deal if mags are capped at 10. Everybody should form their own opinion.
Yes, I think there is. With rights come responsibilities. All too often people aren't responsible for their actions nor are their consequences for those actions.
Then punish them for their actions in a constitutional manner.
A conviction of a crime carries consequences. Some crimes only carry a fine, others you do time for. And conviction of a felony causes one to lose certain constitutional rights that are guaranteed to law abiding citizens. You are basing your argument on the fact that the right to bear arms is un-revokable because it is a constitutional right. However, the constitution also created and gave power to the three branches of government. The Judicial branch is who has determined that the consequences of all crimes are proper, applicable, and most of all legal.
In the circumstance of felon's rights, the consequences of conviction as established by the Legislative branch, have been tried and upheld by the Judicial branch. Constitutionally, the authority of those two branches of government will always trump the second amendment right of a convicted felon.
It's fine restrict law abiding citizens yet not fine to restrict m**** murderers, or any violent felon, if they get out of prison? Is that really your logic?
Is it?
I would say m**** murder is grounds enough.
"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"
And the due process of law resulted in those items being revoked under incarceration.
After being returned to society, these rights are to be re instituted. If we don't trust him to abide by society's laws and operate under the freedoms ****ociated, why are we releasing him?
In the US of Ruf/Nek justice would have been served behind the movie theater.
Just have ZigZag go after him...
Is he still a freshman?
Where does it say this in the Constitution?
By that logic after I pay a fine for an offense my property (the fine) is to be returned to me. If a man is executed then his life is to be returned to him? WHUT?
It doesn't. The rights bespoken in the Declaration (the inalienable ones) supersede the constitutional ones.
No, it means that the government should not forbid you from use of currency after being punished for counterfeiting.
For all the lemmings and others that have their heads stuck in the sand:
Canadian News Anchor Warning To America: Gun Registration Will Lead To 'Confiscation'
The following users like this post: Sooners2007
Unfortunately, I agree... I could absolutely see this happening here with certain firearms as well. We will have a straight up bloody as **** civil war on our hands. Make sense why the gov is ordering all this ammo, and semi aut weapons right now!?
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
you mean the fully-automatic rifles?
Whatever the hell they said they were ordering for "self defense"... I thought they were just the semi?
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
nope, they're select-fire.
Oh, so the select fire versions are personal defense weapons. Only the semi auto are ****ault weapons. Makes sense.
5 users like Dexa's post: bushmaster06, eyeballjr, ImTheDude, oucub23, Sooners2007
Missouri Dems Introduce Alarming Gun Confiscation Bill Giving Law-Abiding Gun Owners 90 Days to Turn in Certain Firearms or Become Felons
Democrats in Missouri introduced startling anti-gun legislation that would require gun owners to hand over their legally purchased so-called “****ault weapons” to “the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction” within 90 days.
Under the proposed bill, “Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an ****ault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution.”
Here are some additional provisions found in the gun control bill:(1) Remove the ****ault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;So essentially the law would turn a law-abiding gun owner today, into a felon tomorrow.
(2) Render the ****ault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the ****ault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.
[..]
5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an ****ault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a cl**** C felony.
State Reps. Rory Ellinger (D-86) and Jill Schupp (D-88) reportedly introduced the anti-gun legislation, House Bill 545, this week.
Gun confiscation is being talked about more and more by lawmakers as a means to get so-called “****ault weapons,” which are really semi-automatic rifles, off the streets. Democrats in California last week also proposed legislation that called the potential confiscation of the state’s 166,000 legally purchased semi-automatic rifles.
California Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) defended the massive gun control package, saying “we can save lives.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...become-felons/
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking...ro/HB0545I.HTM
Just when I thought it couldn't get more stupid . . .
Yeah, that is a waste of taxpayer time and money
That's horse****, but just the first step in what I said all along... If the fed gets they're national registry its just a matter of time before they come after certain guns in the same manner as the above! IMO
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
Fify
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
The following users like this post: Sooners2007
Yep
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
I'd move from Missouri if that happened. Send my taxes to a state that hasn't lost their **** mind.
3 users like Bk2X's post: Cabbage_town_kid, Fahooglegods, Sooners2007
Yeah, I wouldn't really worry about that. It's mainly St. Louis based democrats who are a very small minority in the state. They are pissing into the wind.
Yeah I thought Missouri was pro gun for the most part...
what a bunch of limp **** **** ups
that's what I ****umed it was, good to hear it validated.
Probably going to backfire on them. All it will do is stir up the pro-gun crowd and make it even harder for the dems to do anything in Missouri.
So where are all the LT libtards that questioned the 2nd Amendment? It's been awhile since they've chimed in.
I'm still here...if it becomes law, I will abide by it. I don't illegally carry into restricted areas. I don't plan on selling my guns, but if I do, I'm getting a bill of sale, and will report stolen firearms.
I don't see a law passing that grandfathers prohibition of ownership, so I'm in the clear.
I wouldn't carry in restricted areas either, but I'm not disarming myself if that type of law is passed.
Maybe we don't like to be called names
You say the sweetest things.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
