Who should be prevented from buying a firearm?

[Ted]

See, mention the term "felon" and this is automatically what people think of. The reality of the matter is that the majority of felons are NONE of these things. In the United States, the majority of felonious convictions are for possession of drugs. Then there are idiotic felonies, like importing fish from Costa Rica that are illegal to be caught in the coastal waters of Costa Rica. Or HEAVEN FORBID, the production and distribution of <gasp> unpasteurized milk. Or any other number of idiotic laws which carry with them felony convictions and a lifetime as a second class citizen.

That dog doesn't hunt. A person is either too dangerous to be permitted out among the general populace, or they are not. If they are not then they are a citizen, and as such should be accorded all rights and privileges of American citizenship.

This doesn't even begin to cover the fact that prohibitions on owning firearms only prevent those felons who have no intention of violating the law. If a felon decides he wants a gun, he's going to get one. End of story.

So, should convicted murderers, rapists, robbers, burglars, kidnappers, hijackers, paper hangers, and so on....be barred from the possession and use of firearms?

 

[jbombelli]

So, should convicted murderers, rapists, robbers, burglars, kidnappers, hijackers, paper hangers, and so on....be barred from the possession and use of firearms?

No. It is not wrong in and of itself to carry a firearm. I could never in good conscience tell someone else they're not allowed to do what I do on a daily basis.

It would be hypocritical of me to do that, and it's counter to the entire concept of "rights."

 

[cobber]

Let me offer a far simpler solution: Those who are too dangerous to be trusted with all their rights should be incarcerated or else already executed. Those roaming free should have ll their rights. Problem solved.

Do we have the will as a society to lock up dangerous people for life? This would require a significant paradigm shift from the notion of rehabilitation (which may be dubious anyway)...

Furthermore, would you trust the police, prosecutors and judges to identify, arrest, charge and incarcerate/execute those dangerous people? Lots of folks here have expressed skepticism about the system. I'm not sure most would be prepared to have it become (more) draconian.

 

[NYFelon]

So, should convicted murderers, rapists, robbers, burglars, kidnappers, hijackers, paper hangers, and so on....be barred from the possession and use of firearms?

Have they been released from prison? If the answer is yes, then similarly the answer to your question is no. If they're released, they should not be barred from owning/possessing/using firearms.

However, in the case of at least murderers and rapists, these people should never be released from prison.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Really stop and think about the men who wrote that and the times they were in. Do you think after signing they all ran home and and told their 'unpaid servants' they suddenly had the right of self-defense? Or is the loop hole the fact that they were not even considered people at the time?
I'd say that to the founders 'all men'=WASP citizens. I don't believe they would consider non-citizens having much in the way of rights.

QFT....

 

[Lex Concord]

Have they been released from prison? If the answer is yes, then similarly the answer to your question is no. If they're released, they should not be barred from owning/possessing/using firearms.

However, in the case of at least murderers and rapists, these people should never be released from prison.

Agreed...in fact, if rights were reinstated upon release, it is much more likely that they wouldn't be, as every parole board member would have this question in mind when voting, "Would I trust him/her with a concealed handgun 10 feet from my wife/mother/daughter/son/brother/father?"

The question should be in mind regardless; if the released felon wants a gun, he will have one. Even so, knowing that just being found in possession won't get the parolee an instant 5 or 10 in the pen would make them more reluctant to grant release.

 

[Kutnupe14]

There is generally a disconnect between mens' philosophy and the way they live their lives. That doesn't mean their philosophy is flawed; it means that humans are flawed. Everyone is a hippocrite to one extent or another, but regardless of what YOU think of them, THEY created the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and they explained very well what they meant. Don't attempt to interpret human weakness as license to abrogate others' rights for any reason.

I give you that individuals can be, and often are, hypocrites. However, its quite another thing when that hypocrisy is given legal teeth.

 

[jeremy]

Really stop and think about the men who wrote that and the times they were in. Do you think after signing they all ran home and and told their 'unpaid servants' they suddenly had the right of self-defense? Or is the loop hole the fact that they were not even considered people at the time?
I'd say that to the founders 'all men'=WASP citizens. I don't believe they would consider non-citizens having much in the way of rights.

2 things for ya...
1.) Not all WASPs were considered Men at the time...
2.) Not all Slaves/Servants were of African descent, quite a few were WASP...

 

[Lex Concord]

QFT....

Unless you are one who believes that rights should still be valid or denied based on personal attributes outside the control of the individual, it is a moot point.

 

[CX1]

2 things for ya...
1.) Not all WASPs were considered Men at the time...
2.) Not all Slaves/Servants were of African descent, quite a few were WASP...

Very true. Exactly why I did not mention gender or race in my statement.
But they clearly by their own actions did not proclaim these rights for every human on Earth. It is obvious by how they treated others what their intent was. At the time I believe they felt it was beyond consideration that these rights should apply to all but rather only those who were exactly like them.

 

[Bunnykid68]

So, should convicted murderers, rapists, robbers, burglars, kidnappers, hijackers, paper hangers, and so on....be barred from the possession and use of firearms?

Ted, REALLY? Murderers and rapists should be executed, the rest of them...well if they are free they should have the right to arms. Now just let it go buddy.

 

[Ted]

Ted, REALLY? Murderers and rapists should be executed, the rest of them...well if they are free they should have the right to arms. Now just let it go buddy.

I was kinda hopin' that politicians would be included in that same, first group.

 

[jeremy]

Very true. Exactly why I did not mention gender or race in my statement.
But they clearly by their own actions did not proclaim these rights for every human on Earth. It is obvious by how they treated others what their intent was. At the time I believe they felt it was beyond consideration that these rights should apply to all but rather only those who were exactly like them.

Psssssst....

WASP is a Race....

 

[Trooper]

See, mention the term "felon" and this is automatically what people think of. The reality of the matter is that the majority of felons are NONE of these things. In the United States, the majority of felonious convictions are for possession of drugs. Then there are idiotic felonies, like importing fish from Costa Rica that are illegal to be caught in the coastal waters of Costa Rica. Or HEAVEN FORBID, the production and distribution of <gasp> unpasteurized milk. Or any other number of idiotic laws which carry with them felony convictions and a lifetime as a second class citizen.

That dog doesn't hunt. A person is either too dangerous to be permitted out among the general populace, or they are not. If they are not then they are a citizen, and as such should be accorded all rights and privileges of American citizenship.

This doesn't even begin to cover the fact that prohibitions on owning firearms only prevent those felons who have no intention of violating the law. If a felon decides he wants a gun, he's going to get one. End of story.

The majority of felons are for terms under five years. If we increased the time of a misdomeaner to five years then the majority of felons go away. Often we can not reform a person in one year, especially for drug offenses.

Thus if every felony was sentenced open ended, five years minimum to life with all sorts of pressure to live a life that is within social norms and some hope of regaining full citizenship, we might even see a drop in crime. Plus I would not execute unless the individual shows no hope of ever being redeemed. Save execution for those who do mass murder, serial killers and those who kill while in prison (to protect the guards).

It does not mean that felons have to stay in prison, they can earn enough trust to be on the street yet still supervised. As they earn more and more trust then they earn more rights. Once they can be proved to be a fully trusted citizen then they would be allowed a bill of redemption which would mandate that they go through the naturalization process to be a full citizen again.

 

[Lex Concord]

Often we can not reform a person in one year, especially for drug offenses.

Prison is for reform?

I think that's very rarely true, most especially for drug offenses, which shouldn't be offenses at all...but I digress, as I often do.

At worst its for punishment, at best it's post-secondary education in the criminal arts.

 

[hrearden]

Why would we limit an individual's right to self-defense just because he's not a US citizen? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Let other countries hold their inhabitants in bondage. I'm all for controlling our borders and deporting ALL those who are here without permission, but once they get here legally, they have the right to self-defense as surely as any natural-born US citizen.

While I don't believe all laws are just or constitutional and that there are too damn many of them, if you did the crime, don't ***** about the sentence or its consequences. We all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but what we don't have is assurance that life will be "fair" - it isn't.

Remember this if ever you are charged with a crime (justly or unjustly) and have a plea extorted out of you, sir. Maybe someone will tell you not to b1tc# if you get railroaded by some future gun law or some traffic stop gone bad. Its easier than ever. Also, just so we are clear, I didnt DO the crimes I was charged with. They were seriously trumped to extort a guilty plea to something else so the state of Michigan could own me for a few years.

My complaint was, my so called sentence was supposed to be a matter of days, but its followed me for the last several years and Im not supposed to be on any kind of limiting probation or parole. My post was also an agreement with IndyDave that once a person is released from a sentence for a crime, there should be no restrictions. Either they are free or they are not. The whole point was not the jail sentence I received, it was the fact that my entire life has been changed for the worst, and I have limitations (some are not there anymore, some are still) that make me a little less free than someone like you. Obviously, my sentence lasted longer than they said it would, and doesnt look like its ever going to end. Im not asking for sympathy, this tale is cautionary. I bring my story up as personal experience in the wonderful legal system.

 

[CX1]

Psssssst....

WASP is a Race....

Pssst...
'unpaid servants' makes no mention of race or gender.

But yeah, technically I did mention race. Bravo. It was not in the context of what I was getting at (the people not given rights at the time) but you caught me fair and square.

And this somehow means people here illegally now have all these rights even though people here at the time then legally did not?

 

[jeremy]

Pssst...
'unpaid servants' makes no mention of race or gender.

But yeah, technically I did mention race. Bravo. It was not in the context of what I was getting at (the people not given rights at the time) but you caught me fair and square.

Relax Francis....

Just pulling on your leg...

And this somehow means people here illegally now have all these rights even though people here at the time then legally did not?

They were not here illegally, they were here as Property....

 

[Trooper]

Prison is for reform?

I think that's very rarely true, most especially for drug offenses, which shouldn't be offenses at all...but I digress, as I often do.

At worst its for punishment, at best it's post-secondary education in the criminal arts.

No prison is not for reform even though that is what people would like to believe. What I am saying is that one year for a misdomeaners is not enough in some cases. Most of the low level felonies, those under five years, should really be long term misdomeaners where most of the time under "supervision" is not in prison but with a government issued "father" who is constantly monitoring your behavior.

If misdomeaners were done right, most people would never be in jail or prison but either in work release or house arrest with supervision.

Drug users should be forced to go through detox then rehab. In fact treat drug and alcohol abuse as a form mental illness. Cure the underlying issues and the abuse goes away.

 

[Ted]

No prison is not for reform even though that is what people would like to believe........

According to the Indiana Constitution.......

The penal code shall be founded on the principles of reformation, and not of vindictive justice.