should felons be able to purchase weapons??

[finity]

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.)

I know you didn't ask me but I'm going to answer anyway. I'm just that way.

Self-defense is not the "death penalty". We don't carry a gun to kill people who hurt us. We carry a gun to stop those people from doing whatever it is that would injure us. IOW, we shoot to stop, not to kill. If they die anyway then so be it.

However, if you act just to ensure that the attacker is dead after they are no longer a threat then you should be charged with murder (see the OKC pharmacist trial). If the threat isn't IMMINENT it's not self-defense.

If the guy standing in front of me is holding a gun & telling me to give him all my money or die then I'm pretty sure in that instant I know exactly who the BG is. I am acting under exigent circumstances. I have to act NOW! or someone is likely going to get hurt.

I can even accept the fact that the person who gets killed might not have even been a BG at all (mistaken threat assessment, innocent by-standers, etc, - even though that is fairly unlikely in most situations). People make mistakes. As long as that persons actions were deemed to be reasonable knowing what they knew & they honestly believed they had to act to prevent serious IMMINENT harm to themselves or others then if an innocent person is killed, well, sometimes unfortunate accidents happen.

It would be the same if a cop, who is a state agent, killed a BG to defend themselves or another person from imminent harm. I am OK with that as long as the cop had a REASONABLE belief that he HAD TO. But I wouldn't be OK if that same cop (the "State") decided to just kill the BG after they were no longer an immediate threat to them or that other person.

Would the cop (the "State") killing that person be somehow suddenly OK if there were a bunch of by-standers who saw what happened saying "kill him!"? Nope. I think that is called a lynch-mob & is fairly well frowned upon in most societies.

I fail to see how that is substantially different than giving someone the death penalty. In a trial you have a bunch of people who weren't even there to witness exactly what happened, listening to a bunch of other people who all have a stake in the outcome trying to get them to believe their version of the story & then making an IRREVOCABLE DECISION on the fate of a human being when that person is no longer an imminent threat to anyone.

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?

Ok, here goes...

You say OBL deserved to be put to death because his crime was that he killed 3000 innocent civilians who were no physical threat to him or his people at all, even though he truly believed that the US was a danger to his people because of the policies of the US government. You say it was "murder". I agree.

Since we now agree on the parameters of that word as used in this context, what would you call orchestrating the (ongoing) killing of ten's of thousands of innocent civilians who were no immediate threat to anyone just because of the policies of it's government, which was also no IMMEDIATE threat to anyone?

I guess we would call THAT "war". So, who deserves to die for THAT crime? No one? If so, who ever deserves to die for the crimes they commit?

Now let's move forward with that same analogy.

If a country attacked us unprovoked we must defend ourselves because the threat to our well-being is imminent. It is RIGHT NOW! (remember, If the threat isn't IMMINENT it's not self-defense). I don't like it but I realize that some innocent people are going to be killed but we have to act to defend ourselves from that imminent threat. I'm sure you can see the parallel here with what our society accepts as lawful & reasonable "self-defense". We counter-attacked the "country" because it attacked us first just like we counter-attack a "BG" to defend ourselves when they attack us first.

But now let's say that we have won the war (just like in individual self-defense when we have subdued the BG & he is no longer a threat). Is it somehow OK to later execute every surviving person in that country since their country attacked us first (IOW, "murdered" our country-men)? I doubt it. That's not the way civilized societies do things. We may keep them under our strict control for a while just to make sure that they don't get out of line & become dangerous again but that's about it. WE DON'T KILL EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY FOR THEIR CRIME. We don't even TYPICALLY execute all members of their government either.

I will add that I agree with NYFelon in that I understand the desire for the death penalty. And I think it is POSSIBLY useful as a crime deterrent - but even that is debatable since there are many countries with the death penalty for NUMEROUS crimes but they still have those crimes & are even otherwise some of the most dangerous places to live. Most of Europe has no death penalty but they have historically low crime rates while the US & many third world countries have the death penalty but have significantly higher crime rates. But I just can't justify it's use if even one innocent person is put to death outside of that IMMINENT threat.

 

[finity]

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.

For a bunch of people who claim to love our Constitution so much we sure are happy to violate many of it's core tenets.

Just in case you missed it there really are Amendments other than the 2nd that are just as important. You know like the 8th:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

[orange]

This is a nice thread. Made me think, and solidified my position.

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.

Simply put I disagree that a violent criminal discards their humanity and forfeits their life. Regardless of their actions or beliefs or potential actions they are still, unfortunately, human. Since I'm unwilling to kill a person in cold blood I'm unwilling to tell someone else to kill them for me... even if we've got volunteers, thanks AJG357.

 

[Bunnykid68]

This is a nice thread. Made me think, and solidified my position.
Simply put I disagree that a violent criminal discards their humanity and forfeits their life. Regardless of their actions or beliefs or potential actions they are still, unfortunately, human. Since I'm unwilling to kill a person in cold blood I'm unwilling to tell someone else to kill them for me... even if we've got volunteers, thanks AJG357.

You are welcome, just one of the many benefits of being on INGO

 

[jmiller676]

For people who are against the death penalty what would you want to happen if someone molested your daughter? Raped your wife? Killed your mother?

 

[RockofStrength]

For people who are against the death penalty what would you want to happen if someone molested your daughter? Raped your wife? Killed your mother?

Emotional hypotheticals are rarely valid and are, IMO, not the way to make legal policy.

 

[jmiller676]

Emotional hypotheticals are rarely valid and are, IMO, not the way to make legal policy.

Say what you will but **** happens and all three of those happen often. Still doesn't answer the question.

 

[Prometheus]

So many of my "countrymen" believe in the Bill of Revocable Privileges it makes me sick.

Exactly.

If you are free, you are free.

Perhaps people wouldn't be so quick to see murderers and rapists back on the streets after a few years.

In any event, if you've "paid your debt" you've paid your debt. End of story.

Provided parole stayed the same (meaning parole times were extended under a new law), I would say that being released early on parole would still make you "paying your debt" and under the authority of the corrections dept. and thus your Rights wouldn't have been restored yet.

No special appeals or "justifying" you were "ok" to own a firearm again. No need to apply for special exemption. Once you are out, you are out and done.

Aside from that, every single federal firearm law needs to be repealed. They are all un Constitutional.

 

[finity]

For people who are against the death penalty what would you want to happen if someone molested your daughter? Raped your wife? Killed your mother?

From an EMOTIONAL standpoint I can understand why some people are OK with the death penalty. REVENGE for a percieved wrong is a VERY STRONG human EMOTION.

But...

Do we want our public policy based on EMOTION and not on REASON?

The problem with allowing EMOTION to enter into the legal system is that there are many different beliefs on what some will accept as legitimate punishments. Some people think it is perfectly acceptable to kill another person for that person simply DISRESPECTING them. Many gang killings are a direct result of someone feeling "dissed".

To answer your question more directly, I would want society to temper my EMOTIONAL responses with REASON. At that point I would be in no position to deal with the issue RATIONALLY. It's how a civilized society functions.

Do you think it would be OK for someone to take the law into their own hands after a jury has found the other person not guilty of the crime or handed down a lesser sentence than the victim believed was good enough?

THe biggest problem with the death penalty is that it is IRREVOCABLE. YOU can't take it back. And no one should accept the State being the ultimate arbiter of life & death. No matter how EMOTIONAL the people are about the "crime".

Societies used to (& still do) put people to death for MANY different reasons. At one point it was perfectly acceptable to stone people to death for adultery or simply not honoring your parents. At some point in our history we would burn people alive for "witchcraft" or having a different religious belief. In some countries it's still considered reasonable to kill a woman for the "crime" of being raped. In our recent history you could be put to death for certain crimes based on the color of your skin while others of a different color would be allowed to walk away free.

Until we can completely take the EMOTION out of the punishments, eliminate the arbitrary nature of sentencing & remove the uncertainty in our justice sytem then I don't think that the death penalty has any room in any civilized society.

 

[stormryder]

You take emotion out by standardizing punishment to crime.

Murder someone- you die.
Do harm- get harmed.
Make the punishment fit the crime.
No more therapy, rehabilitation, or whatever they do to coddle these people.
We need to get back to punishment for your crimes.
My $.02, for what it is worth.

 

[jmiller676]

From an EMOTIONAL standpoint I can understand why some people are OK with the death penalty. REVENGE for a percieved wrong is a VERY STRONG human EMOTION.

But...

Do we want our public policy based on EMOTION and not on REASON?

The problem with allowing EMOTION to enter into the legal system is that there are many different beliefs on what some will accept as legitimate punishments. Some people think it is perfectly acceptable to kill another person for that person simply DISRESPECTING them. Many gang killings are a direct result of someone feeling "dissed".

To answer your question more directly, I would want society to temper my EMOTIONAL responses with REASON. At that point I would be in no position to deal with the issue RATIONALLY. It's how a civilized society functions.

Do you think it would be OK for someone to take the law into their own hands after a jury has found the other person not guilty of the crime or handed down a lesser sentence than the victim believed was good enough?

THe biggest problem with the death penalty is that it is IRREVOCABLE. YOU can't take it back. And no one should accept the State being the ultimate arbiter of life & death. No matter how EMOTIONAL the people are about the "crime".

Societies used to (& still do) put people to death for MANY different reasons. At one point it was perfectly acceptable to stone people to death for adultery or simply not honoring your parents. At some point in our history we would burn people alive for "witchcraft" or having a different religious belief. In some countries it's still considered reasonable to kill a woman for the "crime" of being raped. In our recent history you could be put to death for certain crimes based on the color of your skin while others of a different color would be allowed to walk away free.

Until we can completely take the EMOTION out of the punishments, eliminate the arbitrary nature of sentencing & remove the uncertainty in our justice sytem then I don't think that the death penalty has any room in any civilized society.

Use the emotion argument all you want. Sometimes justice is dealt by death. And in those 3 cases I see it fit. You can think that way but in short...don't **** with my family and I have no beef with ya.

 

[orange]

For people who are against the death penalty what would you want to happen if someone molested your daughter? Raped your wife? Killed your mother?

For people who support the death penalty, what is the acceptable number of innocent people killed annually in the pursuit of revenge? Five? Ten? A dozen?
Please, do give a numerical answer.

 

[jmiller676]

For people who support the death penalty, what is the acceptable number of innocent people killed annually in the pursuit of revenge? Five? Ten? A dozen?
Please, do give a numerical answer.

Cool. Good job. Way to turn it around. Do you have a family? Loved ones?

And innocent? If there is absolute proof how do you say they're innocent. Oh, just let them out so they can go molest another child.

 

[orange]

Cool. Good job. Way to turn it around. Do you have a family? Loved ones?

Yup. Should something happen to them I'll be sure to let you know my reaction.

And innocent? If there is absolute proof how do you say they're innocent. Oh, just let them out so they can go molest another child.

Wikipedia alone lists 137 people that were convicted with absolute proof, and later exonerated, since 1973. These are the cleared-and-released people. How many other innocents were never cleared, and murdered by the state? I don't actually know, it's a rhetorical question. How many such are acceptable to you?

Which is it? Better to let the guilty live so the innocent will be spared, or better to murder innocents to satisfy your want for revenge?

 

[jmiller676]

Yup. Should something happen to them I'll be sure to let you know my reaction.
Wikipedia alone lists 137 people that were convicted with absolute proof, and later exonerated, since 1973. These are the cleared-and-released people. How many other innocents were never cleared, and murdered by the state? I don't actually know, it's a rhetorical question. How many such are acceptable to you?

Which is it? Better to let the guilty live so the innocent will be spared, or better to murder innocents to satisfy your want for revenge?

I don't take to heart what wikipedia says....

And I think that the guilty should have to suffer. As I stated in those 3 cases the death penalty should be used. Your innocents being killed argument is moot to me. I know someone who was molested by her father and he was in prison for a very short time because he had many people who say he was innocent even when his daughter was trying to explain what happened. He has no intention of getting a job lives off the govt and doesn't help support his family. He is a piece of ****. I believe all pieces of **** need to be flushed.

How many people have been proven innocent after they got the death penalty? How many people have been saved because a piece of **** was taken off the street?

 

[Expat]

Wikipedia alone lists 137 people that were convicted with absolute proof, and later exonerated, since 1973. These are the cleared-and-released people. How many other innocents were never cleared, and murdered by the state? I don't actually know, it's a rhetorical question. How many such are acceptable to you?

Which is it? Better to let the guilty live so the innocent will be spared, or better to murder innocents to satisfy your want for revenge?

I was not aware that there was a legal certification of absolute proof. I thought they were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Please advise what absolute proof is?

How were they legally exonerated? I doubt there was another trial since I have not heard of them retrying a dead man. So I would think they are still guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at this point.

 

[jmiller676]

I was not aware that there was a legal certification of absolute proof. I thought they were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Please advise what absolute proof is?

How were they legally exonerated? I doubt there was another trial since I have not heard of them retrying a dead man. So I would think they are still guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at this point.

"Absolute proof"...sorry that's my bad because I couldn't think of the legal term however, orange and I will have to agree to disagree he doesn't see the death penalty as beneficial, I do.

 

[orange]

I was not aware that there was a legal certification of absolute proof. I thought they were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Please advise what absolute proof is?

How were they legally exonerated? I doubt there was another trial since I have not heard of them retrying a dead man. So I would think they are still guilty beyond a reasonable doubt at this point.

That last sentence, unless I'm misunderstanding, reads like you're suggesting the system is infallible, that a conviction is always correct and just.

Didn't know absolute proof was a legal term. They were convicted with proof solid enough to put them to death. They were exonerated with proof solid enough to dismiss that - or by lack of evidence of the crime, or documented wrongdoing on the part of the prosecution, or DNA evidence, or evidence withheld by the prosecution, or confessions by the real guilty party, or fresh testimony or evidence surfacing, or other ways, there are many such cases and the means will vary. Meanwhile the sheer number of people declared innocent after all makes me wonder about those that were innocent, and lost their appeals if they had any at all, and were killed in a disgusting, irreversible perversion of justice.

"Absolute proof"...sorry that's my bad because I couldn't think of the legal term however, orange and I will have to agree to disagree he doesn't see the death penalty as beneficial, I do.

Yup. I might see it as beneficial if it worked as a deterrent and did not result in the murder of innocent people. Unfortunately that's only the case in a hypothetical perfect world. Anyway we disagree on a fundamental level, neither will convince the other, so I'm done arguing.

 

[Kenny87ky]

you can't really say you have right to bear arms if some people are eligible while some aren't, then its just a privilege no matter how you put it.

Of course it makes no since to have any laws regarding any type of firearm possession, as it only really matter what you do with the gun, therefore it would make since to focus on "gun crime" rather than guns, as there is no reason to attack a previous convict if he wasn't doing something harmful, and if he was then whatever he planned on doing would get him in enough trouble by itself, or should anyways.

 

[Hazwhopper]

Its not my place to say, but here goes......
I believe that if someone has committed a crime that was a felony, then they should not be allowed to have a weapon. There are many ways for a good person to plea down a case. But after going through the courts and being found guilty then they shouldn't be allowed to get a weapon. This is a constitutional right and if that pre-felon did not have anymore sense to stop their actions which lead them to the prison, or consequences of their actions wouldn't allow them to have weapons then they shouldn't have them.
So I think that many would agree with me, that I would not do anything that would jeopardizing my right to carry, have in home or possession of a weapon.
The kind of thinking that we have let people get away with "murder" and then we feel bad for them that are unable to have a weapon. They should use their heads prior to committing a felon.
There might be the case of a person who was entangled with someone else and they got into trouble but still if they haven't had any prior run-in's with the law they can have reduced charges. (I think)
I again would not do anything that would prohibit my having a weapon for self defense or hunting.