Shot over handgun

[racrguy]

My issue is with the government having the power to dictate who can and can not have a firearm when they are clearly prohibited from doing so by the Bill of Rights.

If the real problem is violent felons with guns I have to ask the question "Why are violent felons allowed out of prison?". Keeping guns out of the hands of people who are likely to use them in an unlawful could have been done at a state level with out ceding all authority to the federal government. Once you give the Feds the power to say who can and who can't have firearms eventually they will decide that no one other than themselves can have a gun.

Freedom is not without its perils.

Did you forget about the Due Process clause in the Constitution?

[svauto-erotic855]

My issue is with the government having the power to dictate who can and can not have a firearm when they are clearly prohibited from doing so by the Bill of Rights.

If the real problem is violent felons with guns I have to ask the question "Why are violent felons allowed out of prison?". Keeping guns out of the hands of people who are likely to use them in an unlawful could have been done at a state level with out ceding all authority to the federal government. Once you give the Feds the power to say who can and who can't have firearms eventually they will decide that no one other than themselves can have a gun.

Freedom is not without its perils.

[Denny]

I'll disagree with this. Every case is different, and I know what you're getting at in that you can't regularly commit crimes and have the same priveleges as everyone else. I can agree with that. But I do think that consideration should be given to those that have turned their lives around. I'm not any less human than you are.




svo thinks any felon, no matter the crime, should be able to own a weapon. I disagree with that, but I do agree that non violent felons should be able to if certain criteria are met.



I think it was on the old board, but I could be wrong. It's been so long since I've done the research on it. Some crimes, you can get a gun after a certain amount of time has passed, and you have to petition the state. I did a ton of research on it years ago, but after speaking with my attorney, I gave up. I would not qualify to have that right reinstated, but I really don't remember the specifics.

Which is fine, really. I made some bad decisions when I was 18, I paid my debt to society, and it's well done and over with. No law is going to stop me from protecting my family, and I'm prepared to handle the consequences of that, as well.

I'm talking about outside the processes already in place. The government has made a system to return certain rights. Some of which are long and difficult, but it allows for proper vetting. I'm okay with that.

[bcoop]

You can't have your crime and live like the rest of us too. You don't get the same rights as other law-abiding citizens. You have been deemed a potential threat based on something you have already done. People aren't released because they have been rehabilitated. Our jails would just be over-crowded.

I'll disagree with this. Every case is different, and I know what you're getting at in that you can't regularly commit crimes and have the same priveleges as everyone else. I can agree with that. But I do think that consideration should be given to those that have turned their lives around. I'm not any less human than you are.

Has the distinction between violent and nonviolent felons been made? I just skimmed the thread so it may have been covered already, but I have little reservation on reinstating the rights of those convicted of nonviolent felonies (white collar crimes, etc). Currently i *think* a nonviolent felon can petition the state for their rights 7 years after release.

svo thinks any felon, no matter the crime, should be able to own a weapon. I disagree with that, but I do agree that non violent felons should be able to if certain criteria are met.

Ya, I think it was bcoop that was talking about the process somewhere.

I think it was on the old board, but I could be wrong. It's been so long since I've done the research on it. Some crimes, you can get a gun after a certain amount of time has passed, and you have to petition the state. I did a ton of research on it years ago, but after speaking with my attorney, I gave up. I would not qualify to have that right reinstated, but I really don't remember the specifics.

Which is fine, really. I made some bad decisions when I was 18, I paid my debt to society, and it's well done and over with. No law is going to stop me from protecting my family, and I'm prepared to handle the consequences of that, as well.

[Denny]

Has the distinction between violent and nonviolent felons been made? I just skimmed the thread so it may have been covered already, but I have little reservation on reinstating the rights of those convicted of nonviolent felonies (white collar crimes, etc). Currently i *think* a nonviolent felon can petition the state for their rights 7 years after release.

Ya, I think it was bcoop that was talking about the process somewhere.

[lowthreeohz]

Has the distinction between violent and nonviolent felons been made? I just skimmed the thread so it may have been covered already, but I have little reservation on reinstating the rights of those convicted of nonviolent felonies (white collar crimes, etc). Currently i *think* a nonviolent felon can petition the state for their rights 7 years after release.

[racrguy]

Possession of a rape tool
Aggravated sexual assault of a police dog
Aggravated sexual assault of a police officer
Felony suspicious suspiciousing
3 counts capital murder
Possession of a farm animal for the intent of pleasure
Felony creeping peeping
Felony driving under the speed limit while in the left lane

This made me laugh. Good job.

I am not talking about allowing all felons to have them. Just the ones that are deemed safe enough to be released from prison.

Oh, so even the habitual offenders in prison that finally somehow manage to reach the end of their sentence should automatically get their rights back? Yeah, I don't see that being a good idea. Maybe you can explain how it's a good idea to the class? I'm probably not going to agree with you based on what you've already said, but I'd like to know your reasoning.

[Denny]

I am not talking about allowing all felons to have them. Just the ones that are deemed safe enough to be released from prison.

so not the,ones still in prison? LMFAO! Whatever dude.

The reason most are released is because there are stipulations put on you once released. Once someone commits a felony, they are giving up their rights to be a regular person. You can't have your crime and live like the rest of us too. You don't get the same rights as other law-abiding citizens. You have been deemed a potential threat based on something you have already done. People aren't released because they have been rehabilitated. Our jails would just be over-crowded.

[ceyko]

Correct, but they used to kill more convicts back then.

*nod* very true, or make law abiding citizens fill out paperwork for their muskets.

[svauto-erotic855]

I don't need to read up on the GCA because I know it back to front. You're moving into contrailesque conspiracy levels now.

I have no doubt that you know that act front to back but that is not what I was talking about. The politics that got the act passed and what the people who passed it said about it is what I was referring to.

I noticed he still hasn't honestly answered his question regarding his felony conviction that has him so sour.

Possession of a rape tool
Aggravated sexual assault of a police dog
Aggravated sexual assault of a police officer
Felony suspicious suspiciousing
3 counts capital murder
Possession of a farm animal for the intent of pleasure
Felony creeping peeping
Felony driving under the speed limit while in the left lane

OH SHIT SON! #winning

Sidebar: SVO has to be trolling, he can't honestly think it's a good idea or even a rational one, to think that giving felons guns unchecked is a good idea.

I am not talking about allowing all felons to have them. Just the ones that are deemed safe enough to be released from prison.

[Gasser64]

A couple of people posting in this thread wouldn't be here to weigh in on this argument if that were the case.

lol, but maybe they were the ones that wouldn't have been hanged. There were some that did indeed just go to prison even back then. I mean hell, you could beat your wife with the rule of thumb. Take that you bitch! Teach her to mouth off again...

[CexMashean]

Now see I'd accept that as a fair trade off

A couple of people posting in this thread wouldn't be here to weigh in on this argument if that were the case.

[Gasser64]

Correct, but they used to kill more convicts back then.

Now see I'd accept that as a fair trade off

[Denny]

Well you make a good point. I suppose if I was a felon and I had changed, I'd just keep a gun in the house on the DL. Many of them probably do. There is still the fact that the constitution didn't single anyone out like that, for the right to bear arms.

Correct, but they used to kill more convicts back then.

[Gasser64]

Well you make a good point. I suppose if I was a felon and I had changed, I'd just keep a gun in the house on the DL. Many of them probably do. There is still the fact that the constitution didn't single anyone out like that, for the right to bear arms.