should felons be able to purchase weapons??

[joemich1911]

I too believe am ex felon should have there rights back, but every situation is different and it should be handled on a case by case basis, I believe a person can have a judge drop a felony once a period of time has passed. Once again it should be case by case, and not applied to all.

 

[jmiller676]

The problem is were letting people who commit murder, rape and molest kids live. If we did away with them our world would be better off and we wouldn't have to talk about those types of felons owning firearms.

 

[Expat]

This is a common misconception. Virtually no states outright bar felons from voting any longer. Thirty Eight States Automatically restore a felon's right to vote after compltion of their sentence.

Thanks. I did not know that. You hear people whining about it on TV so often you think it is true.

 

[orange]

The problem is were letting people who commit murder, rape and molest kids live. If we did away with them our world would be better off and we wouldn't have to talk about those types of felons owning firearms.

Yes, yes, let's kill them all. There's no chance whatsoever they could be innocent, wrongfully convicted, railroaded by prosecutors or otherwise wronged. None whatsoever. Never happen. Impossible.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Yes, yes, let's kill them all. There's no chance whatsoever they could be innocent, wrongfully convicted, railroaded by prosecutors or otherwise wronged. None whatsoever. Never happen. Impossible.

Which is why, way back on post #454, I didn't say "If they're convicted...", I said, "If someone has committed..."

I'm in favor of capital punishment... not in all cases, but some. If someone is determined to commit a violent crime, only two things will prevent that person from committing it: A coffin or a cell. In the latter, there is a chance that that person will escape or be released to commit the crime in question (as has happened at Guantanamo Bay) In the former, no such possibility exists.

I recognize that the law is not perfect and that people are wrongfully convicted. I don't know how to remove that problem, but I'm convinced that if people think that committing a crime just might get them quickly, painfully, and publicly executed, (not the "lethal injection" method used today after years of appeals) they might think twice and choose to not commit that crime. I think that if they were executed in anonymity and their names never spoken or written again, it would remove the notoriety factor such as people like the VA Tech killer mentioned, comparing himself to the Columbine killers.

If you do not believe that the death penalty is appropriate to some crimes, why do you carry a weapon capable of causing that exact result? (Note: This is not sarcasm; I'm genuinely interested in how those two positions can be reconciled.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[orange]

Which is why, way back on post #454, I didn't say "If they're convicted...", I said, "If someone has committed..."

That is an important distinction, just not one I trust the courts to make.
Honestly, I'm divided on the death penalty. There are people so broken, evil, what have you, that the best way to handle them is execute them or imprison them forever. However the legal machinery for doing this can, and does, ensnare and murder innocents. Since even one such event is too many in my eyes, I am against the death penalty in practice.

If you do not believe that the death penalty is appropriate to some crimes, why do you carry a weapon capable of causing that exact result? (Note: This is not sarcasm; I'm genuinely interested in how those two positions can be reconciled.)

Well, I don't have the little pink permission slip so I don't carry.

Actually it's a good question, so here's a serious answer...different situations. Were someone to attack me with a knife, I would be justified in shooting them. Were I instead to hold them at gunpoint, cuff their wrists behind their back, then shoot them in the head, I would be a murderer as they no longer posed an immediate threat. It's not an exact analogy but the prisoner on death row is closer to the second scenario than the first, in my opinion.

 

[Sgood]

NEVER, PERIOD!!!! They knew that is the deal when they commit the crime....they gave it up, it was not taken!!!

 

[NYFelon]

NEVER, PERIOD!!!! They knew that is the deal when they commit the crime....they gave it up, it was not taken!!!

Good thing the Framers thought that too.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people, except felons, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Oh wait, it doesn't say that at all. If you open the door to remove the right from one group, you have created the precedent for them to be able to remove it from all groups.

 

[Bunnykid68]

NEVER, PERIOD!!!! They knew that is the deal when they commit the crime....they gave it up, it was not taken!!!

NO, some of the people charged and convicted with some of these so called felonies had no idea they would or could be charged with a felony.

 

[Sgood]

NO, some of the people charged and convicted with some of these so called felonies had no idea they would or could be charged with a felony.

I agree with that but until, any violent crime, child molesting, rape, murder or anything of the such is a death sentence.... i say no, to a felon ever being able to carry or buy any firearm...

 

[NYFelon]

which goes right back to the point that the only felons 18 USC 922 even remotely having any effect on are those whom are trying to obey the laws.

 

[Sgood]

You know I have had people say but it was just 2 DUI's why shouldn't this guy be allowed to carry for something like a DUI.....

Well if a person is that careless with his life and whoever he may have passed on the road while doing such a dangerous thing.....Do you really want someone that careless carrying a gun?? I Don't!!!!

 

[Bill of Rights]

That is an important distinction, just not one I trust the courts to make.
Honestly, I'm divided on the death penalty. There are people so broken, evil, what have you, that the best way to handle them is execute them or imprison them forever. However the legal machinery for doing this can, and does, ensnare and murder innocents. Since even one such event is too many in my eyes, I am against the death penalty in practice.Well, I don't have the little pink permission slip so I don't carry.

Actually it's a good question, so here's a serious answer...different situations. Were someone to attack me with a knife, I would be justified in shooting them. Were I instead to hold them at gunpoint, cuff their wrists behind their back, then shoot them in the head, I would be a murderer as they no longer posed an immediate threat. It's not an exact analogy but the prisoner on death row is closer to the second scenario than the first, in my opinion.

And given, let's use the easy example, Charles Manson... If they were to open the door to the cell block and take off his cuffs, what do you suppose he would do? While he is locked up, no, he is not a threat. If he is released or if he escapes, however... Do you want to take that chance? I don't.

I agree with that but until, any violent crime, child molesting, rape, murder or anything of the such is a death sentence.... i say no, to a felon ever being able to carry or buy any firearm...

Have you seen the discussion ongoing about carry at a zoo? No, there is no specific law forbidding doing so, but there's that annoying little portion of IC 35-47-9, relative to properties being used by a school for a school function:
If you and your lady love decide to go to the zoo one day... As you walk through, enjoying the day and the interesting animals and such, you occasionally feel the butt of your pistol against your elbow, under your shirt. At the end of the visit, you go toward and raise your arm to push the gate open, exposing the pistol, and just as you walk out, a police officer is coming in, in uniform. He stops you and in short order, has you disarmed, cuffed, and walking to his car. Your crime? There was a school field trip there that day of which you knew nothing. Never saw the kids, never knew the bus had arrived after you did, but a property being used by a school for a school function is off limits to firearms. This crime is irrespective of intent or knowledge, and is a D felony. There is nothing you can plead down to, and you were caught in the process of leaving the property while a school class was present. You are now a felon, having had neither intent nor even knowledge of your "crime". Oh, and the legislature, this last session, had a bill that would have reduced that to an A misdemeanor and added the LTCH as an exemption as well. [URL="http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2011&session=1&request=getBill&doctype=SB&docno=0319]SB 319[/URL]

The bill was never even heard in committee in the Senate.

Still don't think felons should be able to buy guns?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Sgood]

Beings, I do not want to draw a line in between felonies......I would have to say, i stand by my first post and woud have to take the punishment, for breaking the law...

 

[Bill of Rights]

Beings, I do not want to draw a line in between felonies......I would have to say, i stand by my first post and woud have to take the punishment, for breaking the law...

The idea I'm getting at is that far, far too many things are called "felonies". The term was once reserved for the most heinous of crimes, all of which had an identifiable victim and an identifiable harm. This is no longer the case. Sure, there are plenty of felonies that fit that definition, but there are also plenty that do not. The difference is laws that are "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum", Latin terms meaning that an act is "bad in and of itself" vs. being
"bad because someone decided it is bad (bad because it is forbidden)".

There is no harm done by many so-called "felonies". The punishments for them are out of proportion to the severity of the crimes, IMHO.

You are, of course, welcome to your opinion. I admire the fact that you're sticking to your beliefs. That I think you are mistaken in your conclusion does not necessarily make it so. I would hope people considering this question would consider the points I've made and reach the conclusion I did, that the laws need changed to punish the initiation of violence and force, not solely the mere possession of an object.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[orange]

And given, let's use the easy example, Charles Manson... If they were to open the door to the cell block and take off his cuffs, what do you suppose he would do? While he is locked up, no, he is not a threat. If he is released or if he escapes, however... Do you want to take that chance? I don't.

Sure I do. There're plenty of violent criminals being held all over the country.

Are you suggesting Manson and other violent criminals should be executed where they sit?

There's a twofold problem I have with that approach - first, am unwilling to assume every one of that group is in fact guilty. Our legal system is far from infallible, in fact I have very little faith in it. Even one innocent executed would make of the United States a murderer, even one is too many. Second.. well, I wouldn't be willing to walk into Manson's cell to put a bullet in his head. Whatever he's done and whatever he might potentially do, in my eyes he's a human being sitting in a cell somewhere. To demand someone else kill him for me would be morally repugnant.

 

[Bunnykid68]

I'd shoot Manson for ya then.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Manson orchestrated the murders that night... I don't remember all the particulars, nor if he personally killed anyone, (nor am I inclined to look that up at the moment) but he was responsible for their deaths.

In a similar case, a person was responsible for initiating the acts of (if I recall) 22 young males who boarded four airplanes and crashed three of them into buildings, the fourth crashing into a field in the largest mass murder in a single act on American soil in American history. Would you agree that OBL deserved to die for his acts? If he didn't, who ever deserves to die for the crimes they commit?

I'm very puzzled at how anyone can be pro-gun rights or own a gun for self-defense and not believe that those who commit crimes against the lives of others forfeit their rights to their own lives.

Now, lest I seem bloodthirsty, I'm not. I just believe there are some acts for which there is no retribution this side of the grave, some people we just can never, ever trust to be members of society again. If they will never be able to be trusted amongst society.... why are we warehousing them? I couldn't care less that they were born with the same anatomy and physiology as you and I...Manson and OBL and others of their ilk are not, IMHO, "human beings". I can't even call them animals. I have too much respect for animals to make that comparison. These are sociopathic monsters with no care nor concern for anything other than themselves, and the world, IMHO, is better rid of them.

 

[NYFelon]

IIRC, Manson himself killed no one. Though I am not entirely certain.

That being said, I am for the death penalty in principle. However, as a system administered by fallible human beings, I cannot support the death penalty in practice. As has been stated, even one innocent being sent to the death chamber is an unbearable error.

In the instance I presented much, much earlier in this thread, that of Martin Tankleff, what if he had been sentenced to death, rather than life imprisonment? After 17 years his conviction was overturned, as it was found that the district attorneys had hidden evidence, and his confession was coerced. What if he had been executed? There would then be no chance whasoever for the people to make right their greivous error in his conviction and execution.

 

[stormryder]

I may have said this before.
I think that once someone is released/served their sentence, etc. for a Violent Crime(Assault, Murder, etc.)
They are given all their Rights and Privledges back with the understanding that this was their only chance, if they commit another crime, no matter what. They are removed from Society forever and a day. Be that Life in Prison under hard labor or Execution(I prefer slow painful and publicly viewed).
I figure if you make it so Horrible and Repulsive, no one in his or her right mind would want to risk it.