should felons be able to purchase weapons??

[Woodrow]

Should felons lose their right to Freedom of Speech as well? How can we pick and choose which Amendments apply to which citizens?

 

[Bunnykid68]

The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment to the Constitution made voting a right for all citizens of the USA.

The Right to Vote

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

So... should Mitch Daniels be able to purchase weapons?

Sorry, I could not help myself

 

[Woodrow]

Alright, lets set aside the fact that career criminals with violent intentions really don't put a lot of stock in the fact that they aren't supposed to own firearms. Let's say for the sake of argument that an individual with a criminal record is prone to committing crimes. Let's ignore the variables such as wrong place/ wrong time, youthful transgression, inebriation, et al. Do I like the notion of a felon or miscreant with a firearm? No, I don't like it, but I am willing to accept that all citizens, however socially maladjusted, should have access to firearms. For the sake of my own Constitutional right, I will accept the rights of those with whom I would rather not meet in a darkened alley. Their rights are as important as mine, however long their rap sheet, and if perhaps they chose to exercise their rights in some fashion that would deprive me of mine, well hell, THAT'S WHY WE CARRY GUNS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

Alright, lets set aside the fact that career criminals with violent intentions really don't put a lot of stock in the fact that they aren't supposed to own firearms. Let's say for the sake of argument that an individual with a criminal record is prone to committing crimes. Let's ignore the variables such as wrong place/ wrong time, youthful transgression, inebriation, et al. Do I like the notion of a felon or miscreant with a firearm? No, I don't like it, but I am willing to accept that all citizens, however socially maladjusted, should have access to firearms. For the sake of my own Constitutional right, I will accept the rights of those with whom I would rather not meet in a darkened alley. Their rights are as important as mine, however long their rap sheet, and if perhaps they chose to exercise their rights in some fashion that would deprive me of mine, well hell, THAT'S WHY WE CARRY GUNS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!

You make a valid point, however - like many controversial arguments, it will likely fall on deaf ears.

When someone who does not own guns hears the word gun, it can invoke the concept of someone causing violence while using a gun. When words are that closely attached to emotions such as fear, it is always hard to change people's opinions.

It is like convincing a police officer that a citizen possessing a gun does not necessarily pose him harm. The same officer will not be afraid of other officers having guns, because in his mind that person does not pose a threat. In most cases, neither police nor non-police citizens have ever fired at him - but in his mind, one is more dangerous.

In the same way, when people hear the word felon - they think of someone who is willing to harm other people. When you include both words - felons owning guns - you will always have a strong negative emotional response. For most people, the idea that felons are citizens and thus are worthy of natural born rights, will never invoke a stronger emotional response than the fear of someone with a weapon causing them harm.

Since you cannot destroy that stigma, you are hard pressed attempting to convince people that felons should have the right to bear arms.

 

[Bill of Rights]

The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment to the Constitution made voting a right for all citizens of the USA.

The Right to Vote

I'm rather fond of a story about old Abe Lincoln. He once asked, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"
The man to whom he was speaking answered, "Well, five."
Mr. Lincoln replied, "No. A dog has four legs. It doesn't matter what you call it, a tail is not a leg."

Whatever "it" is (voting, in this case,) if it's a right, it's not limited to citizens of the USA. Voting is a privilege of citizenship. If you are not a citizen, you can't do it here.

Like "America is a democracy", we've heard that usage all our lives, so it's not surprising to continue to do so, even here on INGO. Words have meanings, though, and "Freedom", "Right", "Power", and "Privilege" are often confused in conversation.

I'll go read your link now.

(Edit: Read the last line of that link(about Jesse Jackson) for a good laugh. Wonder how long ago that was written?)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bunnykid68]

I'm rather fond of a story about old Abe Lincoln. He once asked, "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?"
The man to whom he was speaking answered, "Well, five."
Mr. Lincoln replied, "No. A dog has four legs. It doesn't matter what you call it, a tail is not a leg."

Whatever "it" is (voting, in this case,) if it's a right, it's not limited to citizens of the USA. Voting is a privilege of citizenship. If you are not a citizen, you can't do it here.

Like "America is a democracy", we've heard that usage all our lives, so it's not surprising to continue to do so, even here on INGO. Words have meanings, though, and "Freedom", "Right", "Power", and "Privilege" are often confused in conversation.

I'll go read your link now.

(Edit: Read the last line of that link(about Jesse Jackson) for a good laugh. Wonder how long ago that was written?)

Blessings,
Bill

Calling you out Bill. If voting is a privilege granted in the constitution doesn't that mean black people being free is a privilege granted by the same amendments. Gimme your thoughts sir.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Calling you out Bill. If voting is a privilege granted in the constitution doesn't that mean black people being free is a privilege granted by the same amendments. Gimme your thoughts sir.

Nope. Freedom is a right granted by our Creator. That right is guaranteed by the Constitution, as amended, and our Declaration of Independence, against governmental impingement upon that right.

Does that help?

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bunnykid68]

Nope. Freedom is a right granted by our Creator. That right is guaranteed by the Constitution, as amended, and our Declaration of Independence, against governmental impingement upon that right.

Does that help?

Blessings,
Bill

Yep, I am following your line of thought now.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Exactly. Let's not even consider "gun stuff" as the felony in question...

If a girl of, say, 20 years old gets busted for two OWIs in two years, she will be charged with a felony and serve whatever sentence applies to that charge. After she finishes her sentence, including parole, she will be disallowed from keeping a firearm in her home or going to a range to shoot, but if she drives someone else there to practice, she can stop by the liquor store on the way home and buy a couple of cases and a bottle of Jack with no more than a glance at her ID to confirm her age.

Should a former felon be able to legally purchase guns?

You be the judge.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill I don't know any 20yr girls that have been hit with 2 OWIs in 2 years, I do know a currently 45 yr old man that was. He is now a felon and can no longer own guns. He has never been charged or convicted or any other crimes, he may have had a few traffic/parking violations though. Since that time he can no longer defend himself/family/friends etc. with one of the best ways to do so. His last conviction was about 15 years ago. I would trust this man with my life, I'm ashamed that I live in a country that forbids him from doing so.

And three different from what you posted.
I know a guy that met a girl in a bar and took her home, she stayed there for about 3 days. One day when she went to the store to pick up some groceries, there was a knock on the door. It was the girls mom, to make a long story short, she informed the guy that her daughter was 13. This was before the law was changed. Luckily for him the Mom didn't press charges.

I also know a guy who when he was 17-18,And was a punk who stole car stereos. He was busted and and got a felony. He is now 40+ and a pretty much model citizen. He can't protect his family.

I have a family member(sorta) who co-owned a bar, the other co-owner was selling coke out of the bar. He wasn't doing it and didn't know the guy was doing it. He was charged with I think about 6 different charges, the bar was shut down and all his accounts were frozen. The prosecutor told his attorney that they were going to go for the max sentence on all charges but if he plead guilty the were going to ask for lenience. Since all his money was froze, all he had was the public defender, so he took his advice. He ended up with a felony charge and did 6 years.

All three should be able to own guns.

Like many others, I think that if they have been released, they should no longer be a threat to society, and they should be treated no differently. If we feel someone is fit to be in public, they should be treated no differently. If we can not trust them enough to allow them to vote, or own firearms, then why are they not still in prison?

Agreed 100%, and +1 for IN that we allow felons to vote.

The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendment to the Constitution made voting a right for all citizens of the USA.

The Right to Vote

Actually no, the 13 and 14 made slavery (except under certain conditions) illegal and made the slaves and their children citizens. The 15th, just made it unconstitutional to prohibit a certain class of citizens because of race/color/previous condition of servitude to vote due to those reasons.

The states can still make up their own rules on who can vote, they may lose some representation, but they can still do so. For instance can you show me anywhere in the US Constitution that forbids states from only allowing property owners the privilege to vote? Or setting the voting age at 35? Or requiring a minimum or maximum amount of income?

Calling you out Bill. If voting is a privilege granted in the constitution doesn't that mean black people being free is a privilege granted by the same amendments. Gimme your thoughts sir.

Not Bill and I'm not answering for him, just my answers to your question. No it does not mean that it is a privilege for blacks to be free, they have the inherent right to be free. That right was infringed upon, just like not allowing felons who have completed their incarceration from owning firearms is an infringement.

And a major pet peeve of mine. The Bill of Rights does not grant a single danged thing. The things listed belong to all the people on earth. I got into a discussion about this on a very liberal website, and I posed the question to the lady blogger, if being in a country with strong Sharia law, does that negate your right to free speech? The right to associate with who you choose? The right to defend yourself against attackers with the best means to defend yourself? The right to leave a man who beats you?

 

[.40caltrucker]

Still not convinced felons should be able to buy or own firearms.

The argument that they should be locked up if they can't be trusted to have their rights back just doesn't work. Jails and prisons are full now.

Lets get it straight, the right to keep and bear arms was not taken from them. They willfully gave that right up. They chose to commit the crime and knew what the consequences would be, so that constitutes a choice right?

Why should the laws be changed for them when they didn't care what they were before they committed their crime?

The rights of the law abiding come before the rights of the law breaking in my book. I'm not stupid enough to think the laws forbidding them from having guns actually stops them, but the law should remain until all laws disarming the law abiding are abolished.

Lets not forget it's the law breaking that give the Brady Bunch, etc ammo for their anti gun BS. So I do blame felons and such for our current anti gun laws.

 

[tobi]

This is an interesting topic. In my opinion I would say someone that has committed a violate offense should NOT be able to own a firearm. But non-violent felons can.

For instance, say someone is a felon for lets say a computer crime, which is a non-violent offense. I would not see a problem with them owning a firearm for self-defense or hunting.

Someone who has been convicted of say First Degree Murder, should NOT have a firearm even for hunting. As they have already proven the mental ability to end a person's life.

Now a felon can still obtain a firearm illegally, and there is nothing anyone can do about that.

This makes sense! - A person convicted of armed robbery 3 times should not be able to legally have a firearm. Is there any reason to believe there would not be a 4th? (he shouldn't be out - but that's another post)

 

[ThrottleJockey]

What most people do not realize, is felons may have single shot muzzleloaders. Being a felon does not bar someone from hunting...

So, they legally CAN have a gun... but they only get one shot

I say, if they are too dangerous to release into the general population, why do we? If they are safe enough to be released, what is the big deal with allowing them to have guns?

This is only part true. While FEDERAL law doesn't consider them firearms, most STATES have their own laws that DO consider them firearms.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Still not convinced felons should be able to buy or own firearms.

The argument that they should be locked up if they can't be trusted to have their rights back just doesn't work. Jails and prisons are full now.

Lets get it straight, the right to keep and bear arms was not taken from them. They willfully gave that right up. They chose to commit the crime and knew what the consequences would be, so that constitutes a choice right?

Why should the laws be changed for them when they didn't care what they were before they committed their crime?

The rights of the law abiding come before the rights of the law breaking in my book. I'm not stupid enough to think the laws forbidding them from having guns actually stops them, but the law should remain until all laws disarming the law abiding are abolished.

Lets not forget it's the law breaking that give the Brady Bunch, etc ammo for their anti gun BS. So I do blame felons and such for our current anti gun laws.

Jails and prisons are full now, yes: Full of people who've done nothing to hurt anyone, just had some substance that they chose to put in their bodies that some nimrod in an office convinced a bunch of other nimrods needed to be "banned". Good luck with that... those substances still flourish, just as alcohol did during Prohibition.

They made a choice, yes. Should that choice involve a life sentence of defenselessness and helplessness, especially if the "crime" harmed no one?

If a law exists that does no good, why are we supporting keeping it, especially when it violates our nation's and our state's Constitutions?

You may blame the so-called "felons" for all those laws. In my opinion, you do so in error: The blame for those laws rests solely on the anti-freedom politicians who passed them.



Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bunnykid68]

Jails and prisons are full now, yes: Full of people who've done nothing to hurt anyone, just had some substance that they chose to put in their bodies that some nimrod in an office convinced a bunch of other nimrods needed to be "banned". Good luck with that... those substances still flourish, just as alcohol did during Prohibition.

They made a choice, yes. Should that choice involve a life sentence of defenselessness and helplessness, especially if the "crime" harmed no one?

If a law exists that does no good, why are we supporting keeping it, especially when it violates our nation's and our state's Constitutions?

You may blame the so-called "felons" for all those laws. In my opinion, you do so in error: The blame for those laws rests solely on the anti-freedom politicians who passed them.



Blessings,
Bill

You stated that very well sir.

 

[ATM]

...A person convicted of armed robbery 3 times should not be able to legally have a firearm.

The problem isn't the "armed" part of armed robbery.
It's placing the focus and remediation on the inanimate tool rather than the action the person took with it.

Is there any reason to believe there would not be a 4th?

Even with the current law, there was a 2nd and 3rd, right?
If we conclude that it's not an effective law to prevent violent actions - why keep it?

(he shouldn't be out - but that's another post)

This is a primary point. Get rid of the object ban (which will be ignored) and hold actions more accountable.

 

[iChokePeople]

Even with the current law, there was a 2nd and 3rd, right?
If we conclude that it's not an effective law to prevent violent actions - why keep it?

But by that logic, we'd also eliminate the law against armed robbery. I get what you're saying, but I don't agree with the conclusion. I don't agree with eliminating a law simply because a few people don't obey it, even if they break it repeatedly. I agree with focusing more on the actions than on the tool, but not to the extent that we eliminate the law. If this offender committed an armed robbery again, he would be punished for both the robbery and possessing the firearm. I have no problem with that. I also can appreciate the fact that the law against his possessing a firearm gives law enforcement officers some teeth if they happen to catch him in a dark alley with a Glock (because bad people would never use 1911s...) stuck in his pants wearing a ski mask. You know, just minding his own business, having done nothing wrong.

 

[Rookie]

Still not convinced felons should be able to buy or own firearms.

I don't understand why you would be willing to deprive them of their second amendment right. Why not their first, fourth, and fifth while we're at it?

Why the second? Because guns are dangerous? Words are more dangerous any day of the week.

The second seems very clear to me. "... shall NOT be infringed" there's no exceptions.

 

[ATM]

But by that logic, we'd also eliminate the law against armed robbery.

It may have been a faulty conclusion from my premise, but armed robbery remains an action that deserves consequences, as would unarmed robbery.
A person who commits such actions should have their freedom to commit further actions against society taken away.
To assume that barring the legal possession of arms will make them less likely to commit another robbery if they are freed is nonsense.
If that assumption is any basis for deciding whether or not they can be released from incarceration, they should not be freed.

So my problem is with the law that currently makes the armed part by itself a crime when it's not coupled with any potentially harmful action.

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

The argument that they should be locked up if they can't be trusted to have their rights back just doesn't work. Jails and prisons are full now.

Who said locking them up would be the best way to deal with them? If we are only talking about people that have been granted their three appeals, and are already deemed too violent to be released in society...

The failures of our penal system does not justify other failures.