Should a convicted felon be allowed to carry firearm - Page 4
Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 155

Thread: Should a convicted felon be allowed to carry firearm

  1. #31
    How can someone that took away every right from their victim think they deserve their rights back. That takes a big set of brass ones to even ask.

    There are many crimes that shouldn't be considered felonies and many people who are failed by the justice system. But for a very large number if people they get what they deserve. Like someone said, for some things there are no do overs.

    But hey, if some of the people here are ok with giving a murderer, a rapist, or a child molester a gun and setting then loose near your family, I guess that you trust people enough that you don't even carry a gun.

  2.   
  3. Um, murderers, rapists and child molesters typically spend the majority of their life behind bars. Even if they do get out what generally happens with these 3 types of people is while on parole or shortly thereafter they mess up yet again and back to prison they go. Most of the responses here are basically saying gun rights may be restored AFTER debt is paid, meaning jail+parole and in my opinion 7-10 years after completing all requirements. So to answer you I'm saying no I don't think murders, rapists and child perverts should have their gun rights restored to them because the % of those people who get out of jail and remain out of trouble for 7-10 years is 0%

  4. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Cotillion:235721
    Um, murderers, rapists and child molesters typically spend the majority of their life behind bars. Even if they do get out what generally happens with these 3 types of people is while on parole or shortly thereafter they mess up yet again and back to prison they go. Most of the responses here are basically saying gun rights may be restored AFTER debt is paid, meaning jail+parole and in my opinion 7-10 years after completing all requirements. So to answer you I'm saying no I don't think murders, rapists and child perverts should have their gun rights restored to them because the % of those people who get out of jail and remain out of trouble for 7-10 years is 0%
    Murderers do typically spend the majority of their lives behind bars. Rapists and child molesters, not so much. That's the problem. They should. Punishment no longer fits the crime. We are prematurely letting these people out, so we are forced to prematurely consider whether they are deserving of having their rights restored. If punishments matched the crimes, truly, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

    And by the way Cotillion the concept of recidivism is not a safeguard. In order for someone to reoffend and go back to prison, there has to be another victim. That's what we should be trying to avoid. Make the sentence worthy to deter the crime, then we will have no half-citizens.

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma, for now
    Posts
    364
    Some here are saying that if the offense "involved a firearm," then the offender should no longer be allowed to possess a firearm. Let's extend that a bit, shall we?

    Consider a bank robber who writes a note, has no weapon (though the note implies one), then drives off in their car. No one is injured, and the robber is arrested is arrested a short time later, and all the money is recovered. What will you take away from this person? A gun is just a tool, remember? How often do we say that around here? It's just a tool that can be used legally or illegally. In the case of the bank robber, the tools used were a writing device (pen or pencil), paper, and their car. Which of these would you prohibit from the robber?

    What about someone who commits an assault with a knife? Would you prohibit them from ever using or possessing a knife ever again? Would that ban also extend to use of a knife at home, or at a restaurant?

    What about burglary, where a hammer was used to break a window? Are you going to ban the convicted burglar from ever using or possessing a hammer again?

    We don't prohibit a drunken driver from having alcohol again, and we don't (typically) prohibit them from owning a car, or from operating one on private property.

    Why then the inconsistency?

    Why do we think it's a good thing for the State to take away a means of self-defense, forcing the felon to rely on the State for protection which then denies any responsibility for protecting that person?
    Bob Mueller
    Blog | Facebook | Flickr

  6. #35
    Let's get specific. Anyone that is all for giving back the guns once they have served their time chime in and give you're answer.

    Heaven forbid but I want to make my point here.

    Someone murders you wife/child/loved one, with a gun or hammer, butter knife, screwdriver, whatever, you pick the weapon. At what time are you going to pat this person on the back and say "welcome back buddy, here's your gun...enjoy" do they serve a month...a year... 10 years?

    Let's be honest the justice system is a failure. And to think some crimes can be paid for is a joke.

    I will tell you my answer. They can ask for their rights back in hell. But the justice system doesn't see it that way.... They put those people back on the streets.... And some people want to give them a gun.

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma, for now
    Posts
    364
    I've been specific, grmerril. The question I'm asking is why do we prevent post-release felons from owning a gun, but no other property. They may never have owned, used, or touched even thought about a gun before their crime, but by golly, we're going to make damn sure they never get to use one ever again, even if they used a car in the commission of their crime! Yeah! That'll show 'em!

    Don't you see the disconnect? We're not just talking about murder. Maybe vehicular manslaughter. Do we take away the right to own or drive a car? No. Use a knife during a robbery? Hey, here's your knife, but you've got to turn over your guns. Commit computer fraud? Keep your computers, but turn over your guns. Beat someone to death with your bare hands? Hey, turn in your guns, damnit! Eluding a police officer? Keep your car or motorcycle, but turn over your guns. Get charged with a misdemeanor domestic? TURN IN YOUR GUNS!

    It doesn't make sense to me. If we really want to penalize them, then take away their right to own, use, or possess the tools they used in the crime, not just guns.

    If we're serious about protecting gun rights, then let's be serious about it.
    Bob Mueller
    Blog | Facebook | Flickr

  8. #37

    Angry

    I don't think anyone is including rapists, child molesters and murderers in this. People can make mistakes and to pay for the rest of your life for a mistake can be a bit harsh. I know I said after the debt is paid, but common sense should kick in at this point. The three above mentioned I would think are permanent. There are probably more. But that being said, if a person is convicted of murder, child molestation or rape they should not have a chance to get a firearm as they shou be released. There are a lot of variables and probably quite a few exceptions going both ways.

  9. #38
    They should not be released. To be clear.

  10. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by cmhbob:236030

    If we're serious about protecting gun rights, then let's be serious about it.
    I think you may have hit the nail on the head. But not how you think. I think that some people focus so strongly on keeping their gun rights they ignore the fact that it is not "the" amendment, it is one "of" the amendments. It is no greater and no less than freedom of speech, or the right to an impartial jury or giving women the right to vote our any other amendment. NONE of them should be infringed!

    Many of these violent felons infringed on not just the victims second amendment but on all if them. Dead people have no rights.

    And who took their rights away? They gave them away when they committed their crime. Who am I to give it back to the perp when you can't restore then to the victim?

    For many crimes and many unfair situations this is not right. But for many violent felons this is a bullseye.

  11. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma, for now
    Posts
    364
    A criminal cannot infringe on anyone's Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. Those rights can only be infringed upon by The State. The Constitution place limits and controls on The State, not citizens.

    I understand your point about focus, but the Second Amendment is the only one that remains infringed once a person is released from prison. People are still allowed to peaceably assemble. They still have the right to worship or not as they please. Once they're released from post-release control, their 4th Amendment rights are restored (parolees and probationers can have their homes searched at any time.) They never lose their 5th Amendment rights. Though it's not a Constitutionally-guaranteed right, most felons have their suffrage restored, too.

    The loss of 2A rights affects more than just the convict as well. Family members can't keep their weapons in the home. Case law is in flux about this right now, but for the most part, a felon can't be in the same home as a gun, even if it's owned by a spouse or child, due to "presumptive control;" they're presumed to have control of any gun in their home. Just like Michael Vick's dog ownership ban affects his wife and children, a ban on gun ownership for felons affects their family. Why penalize them for the actions of another?
    Bob Mueller
    Blog | Facebook | Flickr

Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast