Should a convicted felon ever get their gun rights back?

[snakeeye]

I think it's important for gun owners to be perceived by the public as upstanding citizens and on a higher level so to speak, especially the way things are right now.

 

[Bunnykid68]

We live in a society where someone can murder another human being and be out of jail in a matter of years. Why should that person deserve to have the right to protect themselves? They shouldn't! They can cry about losing their rights, what about the person who lost their life, what about their rights? That's right, they don't have any, because they are dead!

If you commit a crime, you are aware of the consequences of being caught. This is the reason we have these consequences, to help PREVENT the crimes from happening.

Simple as this, if you are going to steal a car and know the results of getting caught stealing that care are that you will never be able to own a firearm, never be able to vote, you will have a hard time finding a job, and so on, then WHY would you steal that car?

The laws are there for a reason, to deter you from doing it! If there were no result for your actions the world would be chaos! I am not here to classify what is or should/shouldn't be a felony, purely that if you know you are committing a felony, you are aware of the consequences, so don't cry about it when you lose your rights!

SO they should be punished forever? Seriously? For stealing a car? And we wonder what is wrong with this country.

 

[Gabriel]

My vote was definitely. If they'd done their time and paid their debt to society, shouldn't they be a free man?

This.

 

[thumperdogg]

SO they should be punished forever? Seriously? For stealing a car? And we wonder what is wrong with this country.

Didn't say I agreed car theft as a felony. I put that in my post, just used as an example.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Didn't say I agreed car theft as a felony. I put that in my post, just used as an example.

Fair enough.

 

[johnny45]

If a convicted felon cannot be trusted with a firearm, why are they out?

 

[thumperdogg]

If a convicted felon cannot be trusted with a firearm, why are they out?

If you look at the alarming % of repeat offenders, one wonders why...

 

[Warsaw214]

An emotional and narrow response is NO... on par with Gun Laws being sought after Sandy Hook that do not address root cause and/or reduce re-occurrence. One based on wisdom... should be "It depends"... assessing all the factors, details, child or adult, timeline, etc.

More just, but too time consuming and highly unlikely in today's drive thru fast-food society

 

[richardraw316]

We live in a society where someone can murder another human being and be out of jail in a matter of years. Why should that person deserve to have the right to protect themselves? They shouldn't! They can cry about losing their rights, what about the person who lost their life, what about their rights? That's right, they don't have any, because they are dead!

If you commit a crime, you are aware of the consequences of being caught. This is the reason we have these consequences, to help PREVENT the crimes from happening.

Simple as this, if you are going to steal a car and know the results of getting caught stealing that care are that you will never be able to own a firearm, never be able to vote, you will have a hard time finding a job, and so on, then WHY would you steal that car?

The laws are there for a reason, to deter you from doing it! If there were no result for your actions the world would be chaos! I am not here to classify what is or should/shouldn't be a felony, purely that if you know you are committing a felony, you are aware of the consequences, so don't cry about it when you lose your rights![/QUOTE


I'm sorry but that is too black and white of an answer. I have a friend who made a mistake at 16 years old. They arrested him over two years later and tried him as an adult.
or how about a story I heard about a guy having a malfunction with his ar15 that cause it to go full auto at a range and he got arrested by the batfe? Assuming they did not drop those stupid charges against him. Should he never get his right to protect himself and his family back? I agree. Murderer. Rapist and child molesters took away someone elses rights and there for should never get their back. But their has to be a gray area. We need to judge it by a case by case basis.


Sorry for the bad grammer. I cant find the comma on my wife's kindle. Lol

 

[nocash84]

People with enough money can buy their way out of a felony with a couple of good lawyers, I have seen this many times.

 

[mikem1]

"IF" that bill that chucky soomer ever becomes law we will all be felons ( I know thats not how you spell it, don't care.) that bill is bad all need to check it out then say something .

 

[BHOWPE]

Driver shot in Orlando 'road rage murder' was mistaken for someone else - UPI.com

Registered felon in Florida with gun mistakenly kills wrong person on I-4 after earlier fight at a strip club. Enough said.

 

[KLB]

Driver shot in Orlando 'road rage murder' was mistaken for someone else - UPI.com

Registered felon in Florida with gun mistakenly kills wrong person on I-4 after earlier fight at a strip club. Enough said.

Gee, your right. Everyone should be judged by the actions of one person.

How silly of me to think that anyone convicted of a felony could ever be a productive member of society and have the right to defend their self and their family.

 

[Hohn]

Driver shot in Orlando 'road rage murder' was mistaken for someone else - UPI.com

Registered felon in Florida with gun mistakenly kills wrong person on I-4 after earlier fight at a strip club. Enough said.

I'd like to believe that we're smart enough not to base legislation on isolated events like this.

Unfortunately, evidence to support that belief is rare.

 

[Hohn]

Hey guys,

Since we're in agreement on the main point of rights vs privileges, just wanted to make a few comments on that article, peripheral to the thread topic. I understand the point he's trying to make, but don't agree with the method from a linguistic standpoint. Having only a basic understanding of Latin prefixes and several other terms - mostly understood from context if not from a dictionary - it might seem picky or inappropriate to say anything. Anyway ...

I do recall from a very young age reading that line from The Declaration and being a little aggravated that it read "inalienable" instead of "unalienable", if for no other reason than one of uniformity. That is, in most all the other texts on any topics, the prefix "un" was used more often than not. At the time, I shrugged it off as a difference in writing style of the time (sometimes seen in other documents of the colonial era), and it didn't matter since - for me anyhow - both prefixes have the same contextual meaning. That being "not".

Thanks for posting this.

Perhaps you could explain the whole flammable=inflammable thing now? That's had me stumped for decades.

 

[Redhorse]

I would have made the poll public. My vote was definitely. If they'd done their time and paid their debt to society, shouldn't they be a free man?

Murders, aremed robbers, and rapists are released from prison everyday and you think they should be allowed to be armed. I'm sorry but it's clear they've lost the right to have access to firearms just to commit yet ANOTHER crime. This group of people are the very reason other people have to be armed so why should it be legal for them to be on the same playing ground? I know they'll do so illegally but why do they "earn" the right to do so legally? It doesn't bring the person they killed back or make the person they raped feel better. My .02

On a side note, one shouldn't lose their right to have firearms because they're convicted of fraud, for example.

 

[beararms1776]

Does a violent or non violent felon care about or respect the rights of others?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Does a violent or non violent felon care about or respect the rights of others?

I would say that we must also consider the question of how someone involved in the use of a politically incorrect substance is infringing on the rights of others. Then, we are back to the problem that if we allow felons to be demoted to second-class citizenship, then we all stand the risk of being so demoted as more actions are criminalized and more misdemeanors are promoted to felonies, and in the end the only non-felons will be those in positions to receive special favors from the criminal justice system.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Murders, aremed robbers, and rapists are released from prison everyday and you think they should be allowed to be armed. I'm sorry but it's clear they've lost the right to have access to firearms just to commit yet ANOTHER crime. This group of people are the very reason other people have to be armed so why should it be legal for them to be on the same playing ground? I know they'll do so illegally but why do they "earn" the right to do so legally? It doesn't bring the person they killed back or make the person they raped feel better. My .02

On a side note, one shouldn't lose their right to have firearms because they're convicted of fraud, for example.

If they are too dangerous to live as citizens with all their rights respected, they should not be released from prison. Once again, allowing the existence of a second-class citizenship opens the door to having most or all people demoted to this condition.

 

[beararms1776]

People without felony records are already second in class to those that do have felony records.