should felons be able to purchase weapons??

[IndianaGTI]

Sorry, I see very little real difference between a prohibition on guns for a person who was issued a restraining order BY A JUDGE & someone who has been prohibited from owning firearms for the REST OF THEIR LIVES by a group of people in Indy or Washington. Neither is IAW good law. Both should be protested or in your case, since you agree with the latter you shouldn't then complain about the former either.

Also, since you think it's OK for a person convicted of a felony to be prohibited from ever owning guns because it meets the standard of "due process" then you must be OK with the prohibition from owning firearms forever for a simple misdemeanor, as well? What if our elected representatives determined that more & more misdemeanors warranted removing you gun rights, you know, since they already got away with it once? Would you be OK with removing gun rights for say, reckless driving? Is there ANY crime that you would not be in favor removing gun rights for as long as it was done under a "due process" justification?

OR what if we just elevated that former misdemeanor crime into a "felony" for simplicity sake? Just get rid of all misdemeanors & make them all felonies? Any issues with that?

THAT is what people are complaining about when we say that "too many crimes are too high of level".

Strangely it's not just "liberals" who are saying it & trying to deligitimize the message by calling those who hold the belief "liberals" (as if that's ALWAYS ABSOLUTELY somehow bad) is a poor argument for your views.

First, a restraining order is not issued by a jury. There is no right to a jury trial in a restraining order case. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Second, when I disagree with the rule of law, I initiate change either by lobbying or running for office myself. I would probably not simply hide behind an internet screenname and whine about unverifiable "facts".

By lobbying, I mean take a formal or even informal approach. I would speak to my representatives. These days, representatives are much more accessible both in person and on facebook and via e-mail.

This isn't rocket science. This is Junior High School Government. Quit whining about what those people in "Indy and Washington" do and be a part of the process by getting involved. The "group of people" in Indy and Washington only get there through the support of the people.


By the way, felons are not prohibited from owning firearms by a group of people in Indy or Washington, they are prohibited by their own actions. Again, "why can't you have guns"? The answer is not because I was prohibited by a group of people in Indy or Washington. The answer is "because I got up in Court and swore under oath that I committed a felony and that was one of the consequences I agreed to take".

 

[NYFelon]

So, essentially, your position is that the Constitution of the United States is not the supreme law of the land, that the Bill of Rights is not absolute, and that the Congress may make laws abridging the rights of the people -without expressly amending the Constitution- at their will?

 

[finity]

So, in your world? Should we have no rules. Just guidelines as such. That way, justice can be applied in a haphazard form with only regard to how connected everyone is?

How would justice work in your world? Remember, the world is imperfect so if you break into a rendition of "Imagine", it won't work.

No, rules are fine. Stupid rules aren't. Stupid rules that don't really solve any problems aren't either. Stupid rules that don't really solve any problems that suspend peoples Rights are especially not.

Come on now.

Where's the response to the rest of the post?

 

[finity]

First, a restraining order is not issued by a jury.

There is no right to a jury trial in a restraining order case. You are comparing apples and oranges.

And a search warrant isn't issued by a jury either.

Are you saying that without jury involvement there can be no due process of law?

Do you think that EVERY judicial action should involve decisions by a jury?

We as a society have decided that restraining orders are to be issued by a judge. You can't complain about restraining orders not being lawful if you don't also let US complain that barring felons the use of guns FOREVER isn't either.

Just to clarify:

I think that restraining orders that infringe on someones Rights without actual proof of a crime being committed is not right. But my two positions agree with each other unlike yours

And most times sentences aren't issued by a jury either. They just determine innocence or guilt. So it looks like I'm comparing oranges to tangerines.

 

[Glockapoppadopolis]

do folks that register .09 bac decide to comit dui or think they are under the limit? murder, rape, etc you decide to comit. there are quite a few felonys now that you dont decide to comit you find out you did. honestly i would have more incomon with your line of thinking if EVERYTHING was not considered a felony like it is today.

Blowing .09 bac isn't a felony so that doesn't apply. As long as it's your first DUI, and if it's not obviously there is a problem with poor judgement and should reconsider carrying/owning firearms.

 

[IndianaGTI]

So, essentially, your position is that the Constitution of the United States is not the supreme law of the land, that the Bill of Rights is not absolute, and that the Congress may make laws abridging the rights of the people -without expressly amending the Constitution- at their will?

The questions is whether felons should be allowed to carry purchase guns.

The constitution does not prohibit the deprivation of life liberty or the pursuit of happiness for felons. If your argument were taken to an extreme then people incarcerated should be allowed to have guns in jail??? If you agree that there are punishments for crimes in which some or your rights are taken away, then your argument seems to be that the punishments are too much for the crime. A permanent deprivation of certain rights is too much.

Your argument is that the consequences which you agreed to accept are too much.

 

[IndianaGTI]

.

 

[NYFelon]

The questions is whether felons should be allowed to carry purchase guns.

The constitution does not prohibit the deprivation of life liberty or the pursuit of happiness for felons. If your argument were taken to an extreme then people incarcerated should be allowed to have guns in jail??? If you agree that there are punishments for crimes in which some or your rights are taken away, then your argument seems to be that the punishments are too much for the crime. A permanent deprivation of certain rights is too much.

Your argument is that the consequences which you agreed to accept are too much.

Neither does the Constitution prohibit the deprivation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to men who aren't blonde. Nor does it prohibit these things to men who are not six feet tall or taller. Is that genuinely your argument? That the Constitution doesn't prohibit it? Because I'd say that's flat out wrong. Everyone on this site knows the 2A word for word I'm sure. So find me an exception in there for any people whatsoever? Fat people, ugly people, perpetually depressed people, or felons. How can you even try and make a case for that argument? The purpose of the document is to limit GOVERNMENT'S ability to interfere with the lives of the people. The 2A lays bare the intent that the Federal government may not abridge the right to bear arms. The 10th amendment similarly forbids the curtailing of these rights by the state. Your argument is bogus on its face, and tantamount to genuine intellectual dishonesty in vain effort to support your position of "well they were found/plead guilty."

As for your strawman argument that my position claims those in prison be armed, I'll let T.J. answer it for me. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms". I defy you to come up with even one instance where any of the founders found legitimate the denial of arms to any free man.

 

[public servant]

While I don't particularly agree with it in the case of non-violent felonies...except felony drug convictions... I look at it as merely an extension of the sentencing.

It's part of it. Everyone knows that if you commit a crime there is the possibility of losing the ability to own firearms.

While I'd much rather keep violent felons incarcerated until they were no longer a threat to society... We all know society doesn't have the stomach for that. Nor does incarceration cure violent tendencies.

Just my opinion. I know some people will disagree...I'm OK with that.

 

[finity]

Where's the response to the rest of the post?

I'm still waiting...

Eh, I doubt you'll answer anyway because if you answer HONESTLY then either you have to admit that SOME felons are railroaded or intimidated into admitting guilt & therefore we are denying the Rights of a truly innocent FREE person FOREVER or you have to admit that you are OK with people being coerced into admitting they are guilty in the first place & are then happy to punish them as such.

 

[IndianaGTI]

I'm still waiting...

Eh, I doubt you'll answer anyway because if you answer HONESTLY then either you have to admit that SOME felons are railroaded or intimidated into admitting guilt & therefore we are denying the Rights of a truly innocent FREE person FOREVER or you have to admit that you are OK with people being coerced into admitting they are guilty in the first place & are then happy to punish them as such.

Actually, I answered, but then deleted it because I think it was a little offensive and you seem to be getting a little personal.

To answer your question, yes, some felons are railroaded. Does that mean that no felons should be punished? No. We live in an imperfect world.

You never answered how laws would work in your world... since it is imperfect, I guess no one could ever be punished because if anyone is punished, some people would inevitably be railroaded.

Answer, please, how would the law work in this world if you were King? Complaining about the problem does not do much good if you have no solution.

Confucius say: Man who drives Hummer but complains about the price of gas is not making political speech, he is whining.

 

[IndianaGTI]

Neither does the Constitution prohibit the deprivation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to men who aren't blonde. Nor does it prohibit these things to men who are not six feet tall or taller. Is that genuinely your argument? That the Constitution doesn't prohibit it? Because I'd say that's flat out wrong. Everyone on this site knows the 2A word for word I'm sure. So find me an exception in there for any people whatsoever? Fat people, ugly people, perpetually depressed people, or felons. How can you even try and make a case for that argument? The purpose of the document is to limit GOVERNMENT'S ability to interfere with the lives of the people. The 2A lays bare the intent that the Federal government may not abridge the right to bear arms. The 10th amendment similarly forbids the curtailing of these rights by the state. Your argument is bogus on its face, and tantamount to genuine intellectual dishonesty in vain effort to support your position of "well they were found/plead guilty."

As for your strawman argument that my position claims those in prison be armed, I'll let T.J. answer it for me. "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms". I defy you to come up with even one instance where any of the founders found legitimate the denial of arms to any free man.

You seem to be having trouble understanding. The constitution does prohibit the deprivation of life liberty and happiness to blind people. But the constitution does not prohibit punishment of criminals.

Is that your argument??

A constitutional argument? That the constitution prohibits a felon from being deprived of liberty? That the constitution prohibits a felon from being deprived of the right to bear arms?

The deprivation of your rights is the result of your admission to a felony. You contracted for that punishment.

 

[right winger]

Violent felons never.

 

[IndianaGTI]

Violent felons never.

Woohoo, a voice of reason.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You seem to be having trouble understanding. The constitution does prohibit the deprivation of life liberty and happiness to blind people. But the constitution does not prohibit punishment of criminals.

Is that your argument??

A constitutional argument? That the constitution prohibits a felon from being deprived of liberty? That the constitution prohibits a felon from being deprived of the right to bear arms?

The deprivation of your rights is the result of your admission to a felony. You contracted for that punishment.

All right, so what option do you see that he had, according to the information he's provided us about his case?

As I see it, he could either:

• Plead "Not Guilty" in a courtroom of a county with a 97% conviction rate with a possibility of up to 25 years in jail.
• Plead "Guilty" with a guarantee of one year and a felony conviction.

Given that he was being railroaded and disallowed a "self-defense" claim because the person who assaulted him was a cop and given that you've agreed his act was not a crime but was self-defense, tell me why he should only have the option of one or the other way of being punished for a "crime" he didn't commit.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[NYFelon]

The constitution does prohibit the deprivation of life liberty and happiness to blind people. But the constitution does not prohibit punishment of criminals.

where?

 

[revsaxon]

Given that he was being railroaded and disallowed a "self-defense" claim because the person who assaulted him was a cop and given that you've agreed his act was not a crime but was self-defense, tell me why he should only have the option of one or the other way of being punished for a "crime" he didn't commit.

Hate to go off topic here, but when its put like that, it sounds an awful lot like the setup for the A-Team...

 

[Bill of Rights]

Hate to go off topic here, but when its put like that, it sounds an awful lot like the setup for the A-Team...

Same scenario. Art imitates life and vice versa. When you're accused of a "crime" that isn't by people who are sworn to uphold the principles of law and don't, it seems to me that John Kennedy said it best (with a slight paraphrase):

"When you make peaceful defense impossible, you make violent defense inevitable."

It's more true in the context of his original statement about revolution, of course, because in the manner of defense, people always have the option of just dropping their pants, bending over, and taking what's being done to them. I'm of the opinion that a free people would not choose this option.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[IndianaGTI]

All right, so what option do you see that he had, according to the information he's provided us about his case?

As I see it, he could either:

• Plead "Not Guilty" in a courtroom of a county with a 97% conviction rate with a possibility of up to 25 years in jail.
• Plead "Guilty" with a guarantee of one year and a felony conviction.

Given that he was being railroaded and disallowed a "self-defense" claim because the person who assaulted him was a cop and given that you've agreed his act was not a crime but was self-defense, tell me why he should only have the option of one or the other way of being punished for a "crime" he didn't commit.

Blessings,
Bill

I don't know what his options were. I don't know what really happened. He has given various accounts apparently. However, if everything is as he now says and he was railroaded, it doesn't sound like he had options other than the one he took.

In a perfect world, only the guilty would be convicted and the IRS wouldn't exist. However, we only have this world that I know of. Just because someone who did batter a police officer claims he has a defense that he chose not to use, does that mean we do not punish felons? After all, his argument is that the punishment is too great.

If things are as he now alleges, he could petition for post conviction relief. Even without evidence, he might get an agreement to lower the level of conviction. I suspect that there is some reason he has not but as stated, I do not know the whole story. I only know what he has said this time about a portion of the events.

 

[finity]

Actually, I answered, but then deleted it because I think it was a little offensive and you seem to be getting a little personal.

You had to delete a post of yours because it was too offensive but you say I'M getting personal?

Where was I getting "personal"?

I never called you any name's. I just responded to your posts & asked you questions that I thought were pertinent & MAY HAVE given a little perspective.

That's not being personal, that's debating.

To answer your question, yes, some felons are railroaded. Does that mean that no felons should be punished? No. We live in an imperfect world.

The issue isn't about punishment IN GENERAL. Of course felons need to be punished. That is not being debated. The issue is what kind of punishment to CONTINUE imposing on them AFTER they have paid their "debt to society".

Since you're confused about the topic under contention let me restate it again:

Should convicted felons be forever onward denied or afforded the legal Right to use the most effective means of self-defense (i.e. a firearm) to protect themselves & their families after they have paid their debt to society for their crimes & are again free people?

But I think you already knew that. It's not good debating tactics to change the term of the debate in mid-stride. Then again, maybe it is...

You never answered how laws would work in your world... since it is imperfect, I guess no one could ever be punished because if anyone is punished, some people would inevitably be railroaded.

Answer, please, how would the law work in this world if you were King?

I did answer that question. Read upthread a couple of posts.

I have no problems with laws (I called them rules up there since that's what you called them).

I have problems with stupid laws.

I have problems with stupid laws that aren't effective at solving the supposed problem that they were enacted to cure.

I especially have problems with stupid laws that aren't effective at solving the supposed problem that they were enacted to cure that also unecessarily infringe on the Rights of free people.

Preventing a felon who has been released from prison (& as such they are no longer considered a danger) from LEGALLY owning a firearm for the defense of himself & his family is an example of a "stupid law that is not effective at solving the problem it was enacted for that also unecessarily infringes on the Rights of free people".

Complaining about the problem does not do much good if you have no solution.

I do have a solution:

Repeal the stupid law that restricts felons from LEGALLY owning firearms.

I thought I already made that fairly clear.

I don't know what his options were. I don't know what really happened. He has given various accounts apparently.

So first you accused me of getting personal with you & now you're trying to impugn NYF's character by saying he's told varying accounts of his story?

Where did he do that? I don't remember seeing anything like that.

"Apparently"? What does that mean? Do you have personal knowledge of his "various accounts", did you just hear that from someone else or are you simply saying that as a way to reduce his credibilty?

Again, I'm not getting personal I'm just asking a question for clarification.

However, if everything is as he now says and he was railroaded, it doesn't sound like he had options other than the one he took.

OK, good. Now we're making progress.

So, based on that you still think that justice is being served by his right to firearms for self-defense being infringed for the rest of his life?

If there are other cases (which there undoubtedly are) then how many other innocent people's Rights should be infringed for the rest of THEIR lives JUST so that a felon who MIGHT use a firearm to commit another crime in the future won't be able to get one?

Umm, oh wait...nevermind. That law has been shown to have very little effect on preventing felons intent on getting ILLEGAL guns from getting them. The only felons that the law has ANY effect on are the ones who are no longer going to break the law in the first place.

Interestingly, that sounds EXACTLY like every other argument in the "gun control debate". The anti's say we need registration/bans/etc so that the criminals won't get guns but they find it IMPOSSIBLE to grasp the logic that criminals are criminals for a reason & that the only people that it will effect are the ones who aren't going to violate the law, hence, not (or "no longer", in this case) criminals.

So, do you also subscribe to the anti's belief's in regard to restrictions that MIGHT keep guns out of the hands of criminals that also effect YOU (who I assume to be a law-abiding citizen) or are you just OK with laws that MIGHT keep guns out of the hands of criminals as long as they only affect OTHERS?