Would you find it alarming?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If the convicted felon served the time given, then I believe steps should be taken to have his/her rights restored, generally speaking.
Click to expand...

So it doesn't matter the crime if the convict completely served their time no strings attached or does it matter the crime?

Your last two paragraphs could be perceived as conflicting.

I have no bubble to burst and no one has to answer at all if they choose not to.
 
Last edited:
I think you need to go back and reread my statements. It appears to me you're not understanding the context. Otherwise, you probably wouldn't have answered with a loaded question demanding absolutes in a vacuum.
 
I've always been confused by this "served their debt to society" business.

Fact is, they haven't.

If the price of a pizza is $20 and you pay me $15, can you just decide that you've paid your debt and take the pizza?

No. You didn't. The price is $20 and you paid $15.

Society has decided that the price of being a felon is prison time AND lifetime loss of firearms. That's the price. It's not prison. It's not no firearms. It's prison AND no firearms.

We, society, could CHANGE the debt but the debt is currently both, not one.

Now, on the matter of violence. Yeah, I think being in a felonious violent crime marks you as a violent person and violent people don't just magically become "unviolent".

I've never been in a physical altercation in my life. Not one punch, given or taken. I avoid people who do such and places and times where such things occur. I do not provoke and I disengage/deescalate.

Seems to me that minor altercations, "mutual combat", sorts of things aught not be felonies. Couple soldiers, about to be deployed, go and and get a little fuzzy, get in fisticuffs over a girl. No big deal.

You beat your wife, you attack some guy in an alley, you rob somebody, yeah. Sorry. That's not something that's just "a mistake".
 
Last edited:
I think you need to go back and reread my statements. It appears to me you're not understanding the context. Otherwise, you probably wouldn't have answered with a loaded question demanding absolutes in a vacuum.
Click to expand...

Well yes that is correct I don't understand the context so that's why I asked for clarification. If you do not want to answer that's ok.

I'm not demanding anything. If you read the entire thread your more than welcome to state your opinion and follow up with any reasoning you wish.

If you do not wish to do that then that's fine. Maybe I posed the question wrong initially but I followed up with basically answer how you wish.

You seem irritated for some reason. It's just a thread and no one is twisting arms or wanting to argue.

I will assume that your for not letting violent offenders have firearms at all ever and if they have committed no violent crimes then you are for them being able to restore their rights. I think that's what you meant between quoting me.
 
Last edited:
Nittespanker said:
Would you find it alarming if when a person was released from prison the former inmate was given a firearm for self defense?
Click to expand...
I would find it severely annoying. If the government, or even a private agency, can afford to give away firearms to felons, they can afford to give me one as well, and I am far more deserving.

That said, I'd like to see several changes to the current system: make it easier for felons convicted of non-violent crimes to have their rights restored; lower the bar for a temporary loss of rights to include some violent misdemeanors; and impose stiffer sentences for crimes committed with firearms. There are plenty of others, but that'll do for now.
 
Most convicts released from prison have not served their full term due to overcrowding and rulings that say being crowded violates their "rights" . Recidivism among convicts is right around 85%, so no, giving folks with stats like that an even easier way to go out and commit further crimes is not warranted. If YOU want them in YOUR neighborhood, please adopt one and do so. I, however, do not
 
I would find it severely annoying. If the government, or even a private agency, can afford to give away firearms to felons, they can afford to give me one as well, and I am far more deserving.

That said, I'd like to see several changes to the current system: make it easier for felons convicted of non-violent crimes to have their rights restored; lower the bar for a temporary loss of rights to include some violent misdemeanors; and impose stiffer sentences for crimes committed with firearms. There are plenty of others, but that'll do for now.
Click to expand...

Ok I posed that wrong,I didn't mean the government literally giving the ex-cons guns but rather allowing ex-cons to buy them or be given a gun by a friend family etc.

I think your answer is very sensible.

Now how can we make it more difficult for these violent offenders from getting guns? I'm not necessarily taking about new laws here.....I for one think the current laws should be more strictly enforced on violent offenders and as Brian said if your given 15 years then you should do all 15 if you have committed a violent offense.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you are. I specifically stated generally speaking since you still don't want to provide a specific situation in order to provide a more accurate assessment. Trying to twist my general conclusion with a follow-up question like yours is what attorneys call "leading the witness". I'm not buying into that game.

Simplify the laws.

Enforce the simplified laws.
 
This thread is not about tricking Shane Tuttle. Just for the record.

I just asked if the crime mattered or not. It seemed you said one thing and then stated the opposite. I just wanted clarification. Not a thread war and 50 posts talking about you or what you did or didn't mean or how my questions are not what you think are fair.

I think some felons should be able to buy guns and I think NO violent offender should ever be allowed to buy a gun period.

It seems we agree I don't understand the problem.....
 
Last edited:
Nittespanker said:
Now how can we make it more difficult for these violent offenders from getting guns?
Click to expand...

It's enough, as far as I'm concerned, that it's a crime for a prohibited person to possess a gun or to attempt to purchase one; it would help if those laws were better enforced. It's been pointed out here any number of times that criminals will get guns if they want to.

"Keeping guns out of the hands of criminals" is a red herring, designed to distract attention from real, systemic problems. The trouble is that guns are sexy, even (especially?) for those who want to ban them. Their (and our) time would be far better spent working on ways to address the causes of violent crime: ending the "war on drugs" and putting more resources into treatment and rehab, legalizing and regulating illicit drugs, and changing policies that enrich the few while impoverishing the many would be good places to start.

But, heck, those would involve actual thought and hard work, not to mention money... it's so much easier to pretend to do something by going after guns.
 
Yes, it would be nice to find a way to keep convicted felons from obtaining firearms. I think the concern by many of us is not making it more restrictive for us good folks to obtain a firearm or remove our rights by doing so.

If the convicted felons goes out and acquires a firearms by whatever means, he faces even more harsh punishment for this action if caught. If it can be proven someone knowingly gave or sold this felon a firearm, then they need to become a convicted felon through our judicial system.
 
It's completely impossible to keep firearms out of the hands of some who wants one BAD ENOUGH.

There's two sides of the equation.

I want it versus the penalty I could pay for having it.

Realistically, there's not much influence we can have on the "I want it" side. The variable we can effect is the penalty for having it.

It the penalty side sufficiently outweighs the want side, the criminal will not acquire the firearm and we don't have to "stop" them. It'll be "voluntary".
 
Last edited:
I agree with most of what you say Vanya.

I don't agree with legalizing all drugs however. Totally different subject though.

Ok here is what I do to keep guns(my guns anyway) out of the hands of criminals.
1. I keep my guns locked up in a safe unless its the one I'm using for protection.
2. I will not sell a gun to anyone without a FFL dealer transferring it for me. I'll pay the fee no problem.
3. I never leave my gun in a vehicle.
4. I don't tell people I have guns or talk much about what I have. Some people like to talk and they tell the wrong people or people are listening that could try and steal my guns. It's better no one knows what I have or where it is.

While its true a criminal that wants a gun can get a gun,I for one am not going to make his quest an easy one.
 
well this is how the system goes.

a person sent to pokie for 10 years for home invasion, can get a degree in locksmithing.

a person sent to the pokie for hacking the bank system and enhancing his bank account has teh ability to get a degree in computer programming and computer systems.

to just let any of them get a gun is like saying, "sure the local pervert served their ten years for fondling little children. of course they can be bathroom/playground monitor at the local kindergarten"
 
I don't want a likely recidivist out of prison, be it a violent crime or a property crime. Period. Whether they are allowed to legally own a firearm is irrelevant.

A criminal doesn't need a weapon to overcome my wife, my mother, or one of my children. If he wants a weapon, there are plenty of other legal weapons out there. If he wants to obtain a gun illegally, there really isn't a whole lot stopping him.
 
If the punishment matches the crime...

The issue here is, does the punishment match the crime. If someone gets 3 years for a felony, serves 18 months & is paroled, he should be denied legal firearm acquisition for his parole period, which we hope is at least equal to his remaining jail period, 18 months. Someone guilty of a serious crime, receives 20 years, is paroled in 15 years should be denied his rights hopefully for a very long parole period, at least 5 years. So only after a person serves all of his jail time & parole time & assuming the courts are fair, is his debt to society paid. Then his rights, including 2nd amendment, should be restored.

IMHO...

...bug
 
When the world was simpler....

People who did really bad things only came out of prison one way, in a box. Those who hadn't been quite so bad, generally served their full sentences, outside of rare cases.

And those people who got out, (in theory, at least) were allowed the means to defend themselves, if they desired.

I think part of the problem with the discussion is the virtual stock acceptance that all "prohibited persons" should, and ought to be forever prohibited persons.

There are a LOT of decent people in our nation that at one point in their lives got a case of felony stupid. Some of them would like to be able to legally own a gun, for that "just in case". Unfortunately, the legal mechanism provided by law for this purpose is broke. As in not working, because Congress does not give it any money.

Many things that were once minor disturbances of the peace are now much more serious in the eyes of the law. And more of them carry the lifetime prohibited person label attached to the other penalties than ever before.

Our system is not working very well, and many people suffer from its flaws. But I don't think giving some one a gun when they get out of prison is a good idea. Not unless you are going to give everyone else in the country the same gun. Do that, and at least we'll all start equal.;)
 
I don't think a convicted violent felon should have the right to own a firearm. If he been to prison and served his time to me that sounds like a rapist or child molester do his time and I need a baby sitter and this person needs a job do you think I should think about leaving my child. Lol-surely not.
Click to expand...

Okay. would you let a convicted murderer babysit your child as long as he didn't have a firearm? Does that make him safe?

And if I was ever so stupid or situation got crossed on me and I ever did get a felony would I ever own a firearm again -always. I will always have one no matter what.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what felons do.
 
No you never get a gun and you never vote . You chose to commit the crime and society has chose the penalty . It's called a consequence for your actions . This is only how I feel to your yes or no only question . If I was only given a yes or no choice for all criminals it would have to be NO NEVER .

Now how can we make it more difficult for these violent offenders from getting guns?
Click to expand...

We can't , not under are current way of governance . Laws are not there to stop crime . They are there so the state can punish you for the crime . Laws are at best a deterrent and because of that if anybody wants to do anything there is very little any of us can do about it . Thinking there is a way to stop someone from getting a gun , speeding , or buying illegal drugs under are current way of governance is naive . Many drugs have been illegal for quite some time and at times the penalty for possession was quite severe . How did that whole war on drugs thing work out ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top