So lets legalize ALL crimes. We all know that laws don't prevent crime. Over half those in prison are there because of violent crime and about 21% are there for dealing in drugs (not the guy with 1/2 ounce of pot) if we give these guys guns the Second Amendment will be soooo much stronger.....at the expense of our other rights.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Do You Think All Convicted Felons should Lose the Right to Keep and Bear Arms?
- Thread starter vitesse9
- Start date
FrankDrebin
Moderator
Yep I gotta agree....that was pretty racial......But maybe "urban gentlemen" was his euphamism for "older white men who moved out of the city during the late 60's and now that their children are grown, have moved back and invested their money in a run-down area to rebuild and gentrify it"???? You know...former suburbanites who don't know anything about guns because they've been away from violent crime so long and were afraid when the cop asked them where they lived because they were former Enron executives???
Marko Kloos
Inactive
So lets legalize ALL crimes. We all know that laws don't prevent crime.
You know, there is a middle ground between "lets legalize all crimes [sic]" and locking up people for ten years for consuming the botanical equivalent of a bottle of vodka.
We can start by decriminalizing acts that have no victims other than the person committing the act. And don't throw out the "society as a victim" red herring. The solution to "societal costs" of victimless crimes is to make people be responsible for their own actions, not to create a gigantic social and medical entitlement scheme and then claim authority to regulate every single act that may conceivably end up with a payout from that system. Otherwise, stop complaining when the anti-gunners use the same logic when they want to regulate guns because of the costs of gunshot wounds to the public health system.
rolling thunder
New member
You know, when I was a kid and the word got out that so ans so down the street did some hard time. It would have been considered rude and dis-respectful toward that adult. People (other than employers) would never asked such a person, "So what law did you break to be imprisoned?" Back then, a person was sent to prison but once he got out it was considered that he had repaid his debt to society or he done the time.
Now we let violent criminals (even murderers) out into public while the poor kid that got caught does a mandatory ten years. So we are now to the point that we are taking less dangerous criminals off the street while letting the dangerous (violent prone) back out into the streets. makes perfect sense doesn't it?
So we take away a right or two from the violent thug as we let them loose while clearing the streets of low-level dealers and embezzlers.
It's just like the sexual offenders list. Someone accused of raping a child (which IMO they would get a round between the eyes) is let loose but we have to keep tabs on him because many who abuse children ti such a way are likely to repeat the act. Childmolestation should be a long hard sentence, life even if not put to death as they should be. Instead we let them out as well.
If someone has done a horrendous crime they should be put to death or at least spend every day of a long sentence as opposed to letting them back into society and wait for them to commit another act of child abuse. That's stupid.
But once a felon has served his time he should be restored with every right he had before he commited the act. He should be able to hunt, protect his home and children with a firearm and he should still retain his right to vote.
Our legal system is standing on its hands now. We shorten the sentence of someone proven to be dangerous to make room for the fat cats that embezzle money or scam people. Sure that hurts too, and that person should have to do some hard time to be punished, but it doesn't compare to some guy snatching a lady (or a child) off the street and then commit whatever terrible things he had in mind.
If we expect to rehabilitate criminals then it should be a clear sentence that fits the crime. Once they are released back into society they should have a chance to prove themselves by working and being a part of society again. Which won't happen because people just aren't as forgiving or trusting enough to give a "felon" another shot at being a productive honest citizen, otherwise keep them locked up. But,,,,,,the band plays on.....
Now we let violent criminals (even murderers) out into public while the poor kid that got caught does a mandatory ten years. So we are now to the point that we are taking less dangerous criminals off the street while letting the dangerous (violent prone) back out into the streets. makes perfect sense doesn't it?
So we take away a right or two from the violent thug as we let them loose while clearing the streets of low-level dealers and embezzlers.
It's just like the sexual offenders list. Someone accused of raping a child (which IMO they would get a round between the eyes) is let loose but we have to keep tabs on him because many who abuse children ti such a way are likely to repeat the act. Childmolestation should be a long hard sentence, life even if not put to death as they should be. Instead we let them out as well.
If someone has done a horrendous crime they should be put to death or at least spend every day of a long sentence as opposed to letting them back into society and wait for them to commit another act of child abuse. That's stupid.
But once a felon has served his time he should be restored with every right he had before he commited the act. He should be able to hunt, protect his home and children with a firearm and he should still retain his right to vote.
Our legal system is standing on its hands now. We shorten the sentence of someone proven to be dangerous to make room for the fat cats that embezzle money or scam people. Sure that hurts too, and that person should have to do some hard time to be punished, but it doesn't compare to some guy snatching a lady (or a child) off the street and then commit whatever terrible things he had in mind.
If we expect to rehabilitate criminals then it should be a clear sentence that fits the crime. Once they are released back into society they should have a chance to prove themselves by working and being a part of society again. Which won't happen because people just aren't as forgiving or trusting enough to give a "felon" another shot at being a productive honest citizen, otherwise keep them locked up. But,,,,,,the band plays on.....
sarmstrong806
New member
Just to clarify my post, I guess Urban Gentleman was a bit vague, but it was a euphamism for guys that looked like extras from a gang movie.
I wasn't trying to be racially biased either, there were 5 black people in my CHL class at the same range and they were not being singled out.
So If it came across that way I aplogize.
I wasn't trying to be racially biased either, there were 5 black people in my CHL class at the same range and they were not being singled out.
So If it came across that way I aplogize.
SSgt Aston
New member
Yes, I believe convicted felons should never have the right to carry a gun again. But I also think the list of crimes that are considered to be felonies should be much shorter than it currently is.
Danindetroit
New member
So that one is gone
We can get rid of this one, for felons.
Felons don't deserve this.
This has got to go for uttering and publishing, or Forging. Can't have Felons hanging out, that is a gang. Petitioning the government, for an unalienable right, the nerve of some felons.
Their are some more, I couldn't think of all of them that hose dirty felons don't need.
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.
We can get rid of this one, for felons.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Felons don't deserve this.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
This has got to go for uttering and publishing, or Forging. Can't have Felons hanging out, that is a gang. Petitioning the government, for an unalienable right, the nerve of some felons.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Their are some more, I couldn't think of all of them that hose dirty felons don't need.
no guns = no trust
If you cannot trust someone to possess a firearm, how can you trust them with freedom? A gun is only a tool. If you cannot trust them with a pistol, then you cannot trust them with a shovel, rope or duct tape. I think Hkmp5sd (post #16) got it right: if you can't trust them with a gun, then they should still be in prison.
If you cannot trust someone to possess a firearm, how can you trust them with freedom? A gun is only a tool. If you cannot trust them with a pistol, then you cannot trust them with a shovel, rope or duct tape. I think Hkmp5sd (post #16) got it right: if you can't trust them with a gun, then they should still be in prison.
What I'm getting from reading the many posts on this subject is that
1) people think that there are too many felonies and some shouldn't warrant the total loss of the right to keep and bear arms; and
2) there are some crimes that do warrant the total loss of the RKBA.
That's kind of what I was getting at when I started this post. It bothers me that the RBKA is so easily dismissed. Danindetroit did a good job of showing how we would never think about totally taking away the right to free speech or the right to be free from unreasonable searches and siezures FOR THE REST OF SOMEONE'S LIFE. But that's how draconian the current ban on felons owning guns is.
On the other hand, rapists, murderers, violent felons just can't be trusted (for a long time anyway) with a gun. There's a line that every human being has the potential to cross; once a human being has crossed that line, he or she is very dangerous, IMHO.
One more thing, from a pure policy perspective, think about how totally taking away someone's rights affects a convicted felon. Is there much incentive to reform once you have little hope of ever losing the stigma? I'm a big advocate of the carrot-and-stick approach to human behavior. A felon who did his time has an incentive to turn around and "go straight" if he has a reasonable shot at becoming a full member of society for his efforts. But, under the current system of rights permenantly lost, felons who have already crossed the line have very little incentive to avoid doing it again.
And of you say "that's what a pardon is for" I would say "I wonder how many requests for pardons are sitting on the President's desk and the desks of all 50 governors right now"?
1) people think that there are too many felonies and some shouldn't warrant the total loss of the right to keep and bear arms; and
2) there are some crimes that do warrant the total loss of the RKBA.
That's kind of what I was getting at when I started this post. It bothers me that the RBKA is so easily dismissed. Danindetroit did a good job of showing how we would never think about totally taking away the right to free speech or the right to be free from unreasonable searches and siezures FOR THE REST OF SOMEONE'S LIFE. But that's how draconian the current ban on felons owning guns is.
On the other hand, rapists, murderers, violent felons just can't be trusted (for a long time anyway) with a gun. There's a line that every human being has the potential to cross; once a human being has crossed that line, he or she is very dangerous, IMHO.
One more thing, from a pure policy perspective, think about how totally taking away someone's rights affects a convicted felon. Is there much incentive to reform once you have little hope of ever losing the stigma? I'm a big advocate of the carrot-and-stick approach to human behavior. A felon who did his time has an incentive to turn around and "go straight" if he has a reasonable shot at becoming a full member of society for his efforts. But, under the current system of rights permenantly lost, felons who have already crossed the line have very little incentive to avoid doing it again.
And of you say "that's what a pardon is for" I would say "I wonder how many requests for pardons are sitting on the President's desk and the desks of all 50 governors right now"?
Danindetroit
New member
Most felons do not go to prison. They get probation. Do you mean felons under sentence of a court should not posses guns?
Felons who are still serving their time (i.e. still serving a sentance whether in jail or probabtion) should not possess guns under any circumstances. That, IMHO, would be silly. When you're serving time you rightly have many rights taken away. I'm talking about certain types of felonies AFTER the sentance has been served. Twenty-year-old guy gets a felony conviction for passing a few bad checks. He did his time. Now he's 40. He leads a productive life, works hard, takes care of his family etc. Should he be prohibited from keeping a handgun in the house to protect his faimily? Should his sons be deprived of a father who can teach them how to shoot, and to take them hunting?
Danindetroit
New member
Sorry I should have said bradlaw, not a question for you v9. People do not understand, that felon does not equal prison. Con is the slang term in this area for someone that has done time in a real prison. If you see a guy with a tear tatto, on his face it meant a 5 year stretch. Now i am not sure.
Danindetroit
New member
Is Thomas Lamar Bean a bad guy
http://www.dcfpd.org/emerson/emerson.htm
Read more bout this 60? year old FFL dealer, there is a lot on the web. What is a felon? What is a Felony?
http://www.dcfpd.org/emerson/emerson.htm
Read more bout this 60? year old FFL dealer, there is a lot on the web. What is a felon? What is a Felony?
Last edited:
rolling thunder
New member
In my youth I rode around and hung out with a lot of 1 percenters.
1 percenters was the phrase used to designate an outlaw biker. A "13" percenter (like me) was a biker who looked a lot like the one percenters but held down a job and generally stayed out of serious trouble.
A one percenter doesn't work at wal-mart. Can you imagine some goliath with flames tattooed across his face ask if you prefer paper or plastic?
If they work at all it is usually as a bouncer or a repo man. I hung around with the El Paso and Fort Worth chapters of the banditos. I knew a few who a tear tattooed on their cheek. I always heard that it meant that they had lost a biker brother that was close to them.
1 percenters was the phrase used to designate an outlaw biker. A "13" percenter (like me) was a biker who looked a lot like the one percenters but held down a job and generally stayed out of serious trouble.
A one percenter doesn't work at wal-mart. Can you imagine some goliath with flames tattooed across his face ask if you prefer paper or plastic?
If they work at all it is usually as a bouncer or a repo man. I hung around with the El Paso and Fort Worth chapters of the banditos. I knew a few who a tear tattooed on their cheek. I always heard that it meant that they had lost a biker brother that was close to them.
Danindetroit
New member
I know that a heart? in the corner of the eye in some biker circles means "that I took care of business". I have seen a few guys with 2 and 1/2 tears, not polite to ask, but assumed they did at least 12 1/2 years. It may be a MI thing.
ps it might have been on the earlobe. It has been since 93, since I went in a bar, that said "no colors displayed" so my info is suspect.
ps it might have been on the earlobe. It has been since 93, since I went in a bar, that said "no colors displayed" so my info is suspect.
PsychoSword
Moderator
http://www.dcfpd.org/emerson/emerson.htm
Are you kidding me??? I'm sorry, but if it means going to some hellhole, maybe to my death in some Mexican prison and felony conviction ect., there's gonna be some Mexican customs officers with ugly tire tracks across their back. Good thing I've never been to Mexico.
"Upon reaching the border, Mexican customs officers discovered a box of ammunition containing approximately 200 rounds in the back of Bean's truck. Bean, as owner of the vehicle, was arrested on a felony charge of importing ammunition and sentenced to five years in a Mexican prison."
Are you kidding me??? I'm sorry, but if it means going to some hellhole, maybe to my death in some Mexican prison and felony conviction ect., there's gonna be some Mexican customs officers with ugly tire tracks across their back. Good thing I've never been to Mexico.
Rkba
I am not 100% sure about this, but I believe Texas has a provision that 5 years after the COMPLETE discharge of a felony conviction, that includes any probation or parole time, a convicted felon may possess a firearm, but may only on his "Own Premises"
I have no idea how far that stretches, if he owns 20,000 acres, does it apply to all of it, or only to his house?
Don
I am not 100% sure about this, but I believe Texas has a provision that 5 years after the COMPLETE discharge of a felony conviction, that includes any probation or parole time, a convicted felon may possess a firearm, but may only on his "Own Premises"
I have no idea how far that stretches, if he owns 20,000 acres, does it apply to all of it, or only to his house?
Don