felons

Should people that were convicted of non-violent felonies still be able to own guns?

  • yes

    Votes: 102 73.9%

  • no

    Votes: 36 26.1%
  • Total voters
    138
I have a wife and two kids and for sure I'd like rapists and child molesters to be unarmed...
Click to expand...
I'd like them to be in prison.

If they want guns, they can get them. The law only increases the risk to them if they get caught with a gun. If the criminal doesn't think a gun is much of an advantage, he'll use a knife/screwdriver instead. Rapists generally depend on the threat of force rather than the use of force. If a victim isn't going to resist an attacker armed with a gun, will that victim resist an attacker with a knife? I doubt it. What difference does it make whether a rapist can legally own gun or not?

If the dynamics somehow changed, and having a gun was a significant advantage, rapists would no longer care about the minor increase in risk from carrying a gun around, and that's what they'd use, if they don't already.

As for child molesters, the disparity between an attacker and a child is usually so great that it doesn't matter whether the attacker has a gun or even a knife.

It seems to me that you're falling into the trap of viewing guns as some terrible evil. They are formidable weapons, but they have weaknesses. In close quarters, most martial arts experts seem to agree that guns are easier to defend against than knives. Rapists not only have to confront their victims at close range, but they don't usually want to shoot or knife their victims. Guns lose a lot of their advantages in those situations.
 
tyme, I agree with you and I meant my comment about prefering them unarmed as a joke: if they are unarmed I have more time to aim ...

More seriously, we keep reading about child molesters that soon after they are freed, at the end of there sentence, do it again (or worse). If I got it my way they would have a lot more serious problems than worrying about 2nd amendment rights. Apparently in some countries (Austria?) they were castrating them, but I am not sure that it is enough plus it certainly qualifies as cruel and unusual. The two options I see for the serious child molestation felonies are death or life in prison. I'd be happy to help with the former...
 
The two options I see for the serious child molestation felonies are death or life in prison.
Click to expand...

I agree, they should fry those sick bastar*s, (we still have the electric chair). Or at least let them rot in prision.

"If you can't shoot them while they are doing it, it isn't a felony."
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
TimRB said:
Rich L. said:
"When you demand that government step between you and possible danger from others, guilty of no unpaid crime, expect to give others that same right."
Click to expand...

I have no idea what this sentence means, but I'm pretty sure it's a change of subject. We were discussing whether "felons" should be allowed to possess firearms.
Click to expand...

Tim, I believe he was just drawing a parallel, to show how your statement...
Consider a violent felon, quite possibly a lifelong career criminal, who has served his sentence and is released. I no more trust him to be loose in society than I trust him with a gun...
Click to expand...
...is as unfair as an anti-gunner demanding the government step in and take your gun, as it poses a potential threat to them - even though you are guilty of no unpaid crime.

He's very much talking about "whether 'felons' should be allowed to possess firearms." More so, he's addressing your "cake-&-eat-it-too-logic". :)
 
This is how I see it.

A trial put the criminal in jail, to pay for his crime with time of his/her life.
Once they are out they owe society NOTHING*...

They should no longer be punished for a crime they already paid for.
I mean do you punish your kids three, four times for the same thing?
 
Once they are out they owe society NOTHING*...
Click to expand...

I would disagree. I think any criminal convicted of a crime not only owes the victims restitution but also owes society the cost of incarcerating him. Nonviolent criminals can be rehabilitated and taught skills that will put them in the work force and allow them to truly pay their debt to society.

I really can't see a reason why violent criminals should ever be let out. A murderer can be paroled at twenty years and thus "life sentence" doesn't mean much. If someone shoots a liquor store owner during a robbery, why should he be allowed to reenter society in ten years? How does ten years of being housed, fed, and possibly educated repay society? If there's no rehabilitation then why put him back in society?
 
"He's very much talking about "whether 'felons' should be allowed to possess firearms." More so, he's addressing your "cake-&-eat-it-too-logic"."

"Cake-&-eat-it-too-logic"? What the hell are you talking about? Anyway, I don't see why people think that criminals who have served their sentences have fully repaid their debt to society, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence that felons released from prison, as a class of people, are nearly completely untrustworthy.

Violent criminals choose their own paths. Society has no obligation to make them whole again after they are released from prison. I have no problem whatsoever with the concept of lifetime second-class citizen status for released violent offenders. If I cut off my finger because I did something stupid with my table saw, I will have a lifelong impairment because of a single lapse. Too bad for me, and, by extension, too bad for the criminals.

Tim
 
A trial put the criminal in jail, to pay for his crime with time of his/her life.
Once they are out they owe society NOTHING*...
Click to expand...
I disagree. Time is not currency, and a debt to society is not the same as a debt to a creditor.
After commiting a violent crime, the criminal has the obligation to demonstrate he will no longer be a threat to society if released. One way he can do this is through laying out a past history of good behavior in prison. Prison is not society though. Agreeing to not associate with other criminals, drug users, and to not possess firearms (no matter how we might find firearms being placed in the same category as offensive) is a quantifiable way the criminal can demonstrate a change in his world view. Otherwise, society has no obligation to accept him again. No person or entity can be compelled against their will to accept a pathogen that will do them harm.
The other option for society is imprisonment for life, and death penalties to make room for new arrivals.
 
"The more corrupt the government, the more numerous its laws."

The control freak bureaucrats that run "The Government" are not stupid; they know that the more felony crimes they create with a wave of their wand means more people who cannot (legally) own firearms.

If "The Government" continues on its "let's make everything a felony" binge, what is the logical conclusion? Less and less gun owners, along with more and more people under the heel of "The Government."

Here's an example: In my home state (Indiana), for a man to lose his right to own guns requires but one thing: A wife/girlfriend/concubine to call 911 and report that the man "attacked" her.

The police show up, take the man to jail for the night - no ifs, ands or buts - no physical evidence required, no visible injuries to the woman required, no eyewitnesses required - just her allegation alone.

No charges, no due process, no innocent till proven guilty - the man is automatically branded a "domestic violence perpetrator" and loses his right to own any firearm.

I don't know what happens to any guns he may own at the time of the incident - my guess is the police confiscate them, keep the ones they like if the police officers involved are corrupt - not all are, but you can bet this does happen - and sell the rest at auction, then use the money for the department. Where are the accused's Fourth Amendment Rights? In the nearest dumpster, that's where.

Is this justice? Is it constitutional?? NO on both counts. Is it an outrage? YES. I remember back when the accused used to have rights - like the right to due process, the right to trial by a jury before conviction,
and the right to be viewed as innocent until proven guilty at a trial of his peers.

As we saw in New Orleans with the wholesale gun confiscations - except for the military arms carried by the mercenaries hired by the wealthy, of course - we are headed down the path to a brave new "Amerika" where only the police, the wealthy, "The Government" and its bureaucrats have rights.

As Edward Abbey, author of "Desert Solitaire" and NRA life member once said:
"The more corrupt the government, the more numerous its laws."
 
PG-
You are stating that, in the State of Illinois, arrest for Domestic Abuse is not followed by a trial. The person is automatically saddled with a conviction based only on the arrest.

You realize this is what you are saying, correct?
Rich
 
well....actually he said Indiana :p

I have heard of many areas that require police officers to immediately arrest any man accused of domestic violence, which wouldn't surprise me. I was also told when I lived in Florida that if a neighbor calls about a domestic dispute, even if the woman never once claims she was struck, the man will still be arrested (I have no idea if that's true or not, she may have been making it up to scare her husband).

sorry for getting off topic
 
Red-
Correction noted with thanks. Point remains, however.

In many jurisdictions liability dictates that one or the other in a domestic call be arrested. I don't like it and don't think it's right. But this is the first of heard of a State that leaves it at that and creates a conviction record. It kinda strains my sense of credulity.

Also, it's not off topic, since the whole premise of this thread is loss of gun rights due to felony conviction.
Rich
 
that part does seem doubtful; while domestic abusers are certainly among the scum of the earth it doesn't surprise me that many an innocent man would be accused of such by an angry girl

Thus I can't really imagine that they would deny due process because it would likely be a much larger issue by now. If I'm wrong and things like this do happen then I'll be quite disturbed.
 
The police show up, take the man to jail for the night - no ifs, ands or buts - no physical evidence required, no visible injuries to the woman required, no eyewitnesses required - just her allegation alone.
Click to expand...
Uh..... no. I can't swear to Indiana law, but the DV laws of different states are remarkably similar. In Ohio, it goes like this: We arrive on scene, separate and interview the actors and witnesses, if any, and look at the evidence. No visible physical injury? No destroyed property? No evidence of threats of violence (other than he said/she said)? We try to get the male to find other quarters for the night, encourage counseling, and we're outta there. When there is clear evidence of DV, we try to identify the primary aggressor (not always the male!), and make the arrest. Mutual combatants are both charged. They are processed the same as any other arrest. Bond is set and phone calls made, and a court date for arraignment is set. A restraining/no contact order is placed on the defendant until arraignment. In SOME cases, we can take firearms from the residence for safe keeping, but a receipt is given with the condition of the weapon noted, and if there are no convictions, they are returned the same day as the court's disposition. Once in court, the defendant can plead innocent and request either a trial by judge or by jury. Most cases where an innocent plea is entered by an attorney are plea bargained down to simple assault or disorderly. So while DV arrests are mandated by the state when there is evidence that DV occurred, not every DV call ends in arrest and most certainly, NONE are denied due process!

Now, back to our regularly scheduled felon/firearms debate.
 
I guess I am in the minority here, but the issue goes to the perception of responsibility required by each member of society.

My assumption is that a responsible member of society, would not commit crimes against others and hence can be trusted to own a firearms.

The ones who have offended society by committing a felony (as defined by the laws which are organized, and otherwise codified by such society) are less likely to respect "other rules of the roads" and may be more likely to use a firearms to committ other felonious act.

Can the law be more narrowly tailored to accomodation the felons who do not have the propensity to committ violent offenses? perhaps yes. That what's us gun owners would like to see

But, why would it have to be more narrowly tailored? No one had ever said that the right to gun ownership is fundemental.

Blahh..blahh.. you all know the struggle. :rolleyes:

and by the way, it just does not feel right that a guy/girl gets out of state prison and walks down to the gun store and purchase a gun...That just plain gives me the hee bee jee bees. And I don't care it's if it's Martha Stewart or Charles Manson.
 
anasfox2 said:
and by the way, it just does not feel right that a guy/girl gets out of state prison and walks down to the gun store and purchase a gun...That just plain gives me the hee bee jee bees. And I don't care it's if it's Martha Stewart or Charles Manson.
Click to expand...
A released felon can "walk down to the gun store and purchase a gun" as things are right now, just not from the "gun store" you and I use.
 
plus, one should note that a nonviolent felon who before may have had no idea where to get a gun has now spent a few years with people who are able to tell him exactly where to go....and he's ticked off at the world for throwing him behind bars for stealing a car

Don't get me wrong, stealing is a very rude thing to do and someone that steals a car should certainly pay for the crime. But do people really think that a few years of free room & board, time to lift weights, no responsibilities, maybe some free education, and contact with other criminals really count as payment to society? Wouldn't rehabilitation be a better idea?

I dunno, I'm thinking it would. Then again I could be as wrong as I am about a lot of things. :p
 
But do people really think that a few years of free room & board, time to lift weights, no responsibilities, maybe some free education, and contact with other criminals really count as payment to society? Wouldn't rehabilitation be a better idea?
Click to expand...
That is their rehabilitation. No wonder why so many return to their former ways.

Rehabilitation has become touchy-feely in today's prison system. I think that sweating the indecency out of them at the rock pile deserves a second chance. It was working back in the days. Nowadays, due to their "social needs", they spend a lot of time sharing criminal tactics with each other. They should spend that time alone with their conscience until they realize what they did wrong and truly feel sorry about it. Then we can start to consider them rehabilitated.
 
There is always room for change.....

I deal with some young folks that enlist into the Armed Forces....

Had one young fellow who had enlisted his local background check comes up clean. He did have a juvenile conviction that had been expunged and sealed ( He didnt tell us because the judge told him he didnt have to mention it again.). The day before he leaves the recruiter does a background check from the FBI database, ding he has a felony on his record. We ask him what the heck he did.... turns out he set a trashcan on fire at the school for a prank on the outside. I then had to do a waiver which went up to the nosebleed sections of our military branch. After I got it back I made him promise not to set any trashcans on fire at basic training since he had been a good guy for several years and we shipped him off.... So some folks do deserve a second chance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top