Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
And when they make 3 speeding tickets in a 2 year period, or something similarly nonsensical, a felony?
Opinion: Who Should be Prohibited for Life?
- Thread starter ArtP
- Start date
- Status
And when they make 3 speeding tickets in a 2 year period, or something similarly nonsensical, a felony?
allaroundhunter
Member
+1
With domestic abuse being counted as a violent crime, regardless if the offender is convicted of a felony or misdemeanor.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
It's no coincidence that two things ex-felons aren't allowed to do are possess firearms and vote. Those two things are of course two of the ways citizens influence control over government. We vote and pass laws, and if all else fails, we overthrow a tyrannical government and set up a new one. Ex felons are prohibited from being involved in either.
A good friend of mine was once told "“The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system.”
As I said before, two of the ways citizens influence control over government is the ability to vote, and the threat of revolution. But we've allowed the government to create a small group of people who are banned from voting and banned from having firearms. Think about that fact on it's own. Don't think the kneejerk "felons=bad so it's ok" thought. Just think about the fact that a class of citizen was created who are no longer allowed to vote, and no longer allowed the right to keep and bear arms...and we let them do it. They sold it to us by telling us that the group would be people we don't like. Ex felons. Well nobody wants to be accused of "wanting to put guns in the hands of felons" so we said yes, and the no-gun/no-vote class of citizen was created.
An over the years, more and more people get shifted into that group. What wasn't even a crime 30 years ago is a felony today. More and more laws are passed every day, creating more and more possible felons. And as more get caught and convicted, for things that some might say shouldn't even be crimes, they get shifted into the no-gun/no-vote class. And the pool of citizens the government has keeping them honest grows smaller. No guns, no votes, no oversight.
"Divide and conquer" has been an effective strategy for thousands of years. You split your opposition; pitting one against another, or promising to only fight one while placating the other. You wear down on group while the other watches, before of course turning to them.
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
This is so well known to the point of being cliche' for a reason. Because it's true. It happened. Throughout the ages, attacking your enemies in smaller groups one by one has worked over and over.
There is a group of Americans citizens who cannot vote and cannot own firearms. To me, that is downright terrifying. Even more so because we cheered while it happened.
A good friend of mine was once told "“The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers — and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system.”
As I said before, two of the ways citizens influence control over government is the ability to vote, and the threat of revolution. But we've allowed the government to create a small group of people who are banned from voting and banned from having firearms. Think about that fact on it's own. Don't think the kneejerk "felons=bad so it's ok" thought. Just think about the fact that a class of citizen was created who are no longer allowed to vote, and no longer allowed the right to keep and bear arms...and we let them do it. They sold it to us by telling us that the group would be people we don't like. Ex felons. Well nobody wants to be accused of "wanting to put guns in the hands of felons" so we said yes, and the no-gun/no-vote class of citizen was created.
An over the years, more and more people get shifted into that group. What wasn't even a crime 30 years ago is a felony today. More and more laws are passed every day, creating more and more possible felons. And as more get caught and convicted, for things that some might say shouldn't even be crimes, they get shifted into the no-gun/no-vote class. And the pool of citizens the government has keeping them honest grows smaller. No guns, no votes, no oversight.
"Divide and conquer" has been an effective strategy for thousands of years. You split your opposition; pitting one against another, or promising to only fight one while placating the other. You wear down on group while the other watches, before of course turning to them.
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me."
This is so well known to the point of being cliche' for a reason. Because it's true. It happened. Throughout the ages, attacking your enemies in smaller groups one by one has worked over and over.
There is a group of Americans citizens who cannot vote and cannot own firearms. To me, that is downright terrifying. Even more so because we cheered while it happened.
zxcvbob
Member
Why?
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
For now. There's a bill in New York right now that would make cheating on the SAT a felony. The list of what is a felony is ever growing. Sentencing requirements are going up every where and new laws are being passed everywhere. Think about that. A college kid cheating on a school test. No guns and no voting for life. Cheat on a test? You don't have a say in how your government is run. First you make only 3rd offense DUI a felony. A few years later, you make 2nd offense in X amount of years a felony. Then a few years later, you make even 1 DUI a felony. In each case, no one wants to be that guy who stands up for drunk drivers, so it gets passed. And the pool of citizens who have a say in government gets smaller and smaller.
allaroundhunter
Member
Because domestic abuse is just that, "abuse". Domestic abuse is not given away for something that is non-threatening.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
I don't think you're all that familiar with the modern application of domestic assault/violence laws. That whole set of laws is a can of worms inside a power keg. In far too many instances, you have situations where "woman attacks man, man blocks woman's strikes, man goes to jail for DV" or something similar. About the only thing man can do, even when being violently and physically attacked by their domestic partner is run away and be the first to call police. Anything else, and it's pretty much accepted policy to arrest the man by default. Not to say it's always that, but the man gets arrested by default in FAR to many incidents, even when he's not the aggressor, that making DV an automatic "no-gun/no-voting" thing is a pretty bad idea.
allaroundhunter
Member
This should be understood by men anyways. There is no reason to get physical with a woman in an argument at any point.
Is it fair? Not necessarily but it is what it is. Do notice that I said "convicted" of a domestic violence charge, not charged with.
Ragnar Danneskjold
Member
Well, it probably shouldn't be a reason to deny someone their inalienable rights for life now should it?
sugarmaker
Member
If someone has employed lethal force in the comission of a crime, sorry, some mistakes in life we don't recover from and that's one of them. Personally I wouldn't even let them out of jail as the risk to society is simply too great. People who have crossed that line have 100x the chance of re-offending compared to the rest of us.
highlander 5
Member
I have no problem with restoring the rights of a non violent offender,but if you've harmed somone in the commision of a crime,kill a LEO,fireamn on or off duty, harm a child
or declared mentally incompetent you lose your right to own a firearm. Now IIRC 80% of violent crime is commited by 5% of the prison population we know who they are for the most part so why let them loose to begin with.
or declared mentally incompetent you lose your right to own a firearm. Now IIRC 80% of violent crime is commited by 5% of the prison population we know who they are for the most part so why let them loose to begin with.
JRH6856
Member
It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender. Both sexes are entitled to equal protection under the law. Women fought long and hard to achieve equality with men and it appears you wish to deny them that equality.
beatledog7
Member
The problem is that everyone has a little bit different take on what crimes (or how many repeat offenses) should lead to permanent prohibition.
For many it depends on who you care about who's been a victim of what crime and who you care about who's committed what crime.
For many it depends on who you care about who's been a victim of what crime and who you care about who's committed what crime.
beatledog7
Member
No longer exists in this country. Designating "protected" classes of persons ensures that those who are not a member of some protected class are less equally protected.
I love all the self righteous chest thumping that goes on with this topic.
BTW, in many states simply threatening or yelling at your partner to where she "felt" threatened is enough to net a domestic violence charge that will strip you of your 2nd amendment rights. You don't have to "abuse" her. Hell, all they need is her word anyways so you don't have to actually DO anything. If you think thats fair, I don't see what arguing with you would accomplish.
BTW, in many states simply threatening or yelling at your partner to where she "felt" threatened is enough to net a domestic violence charge that will strip you of your 2nd amendment rights. You don't have to "abuse" her. Hell, all they need is her word anyways so you don't have to actually DO anything. If you think thats fair, I don't see what arguing with you would accomplish.
JRH6856
Member
Thank you, beatledog7, for stating what should be obvious. When it comes to protected classes, all to often offense equals abuse, then abuse equals assault. And then, because the class is "protected" the assault becomes a felony.
Working in the field of family law everyday, I always enjoy these discussions when the issue of domestic violence arises. Invariably, someone asserts that a woman gets a man's rights "taken" away based upon some false or salacious accusation.
Quite frankly, the difficulties and hardships associated with the prosecution of any crime makes an individual pursing such ends for some other purpose almost non-existant and certainly ill-advised, as it is a crime in of itself. Further, the other protections of the Constitution, such as right to trial by jury and representation by counsel, protect us from infringement upon our rights, including 2A, and outline a process by which we may protect ourselves.
Simply put, I believe unjustified physical violence (self-defense, defense of others, etc.) resulting in severe physical injury, particuarly when exercised against a household or family member, should operate as a bar to 2A right, without respect to "felony" or "misdemeanor" classification.
For other "felony" offenders, a strict, laborious process of gradual restoration is appropriate.
Just my opinion and that with a $1 will get ya a cup of coffee.
Quite frankly, the difficulties and hardships associated with the prosecution of any crime makes an individual pursing such ends for some other purpose almost non-existant and certainly ill-advised, as it is a crime in of itself. Further, the other protections of the Constitution, such as right to trial by jury and representation by counsel, protect us from infringement upon our rights, including 2A, and outline a process by which we may protect ourselves.
Simply put, I believe unjustified physical violence (self-defense, defense of others, etc.) resulting in severe physical injury, particuarly when exercised against a household or family member, should operate as a bar to 2A right, without respect to "felony" or "misdemeanor" classification.
For other "felony" offenders, a strict, laborious process of gradual restoration is appropriate.
Just my opinion and that with a $1 will get ya a cup of coffee.
Last edited:
So you think that because when I was 16 and stole a credit card and was convicted of theft 3, a felony, that I should be considered the same as someone who murdered their wife?
You probably think zero tolerance policies are a good thing too.
Each case is unique and should be treated as such.
Onward Allusion
Member
I wouldn't hire a lot of qualified people who have NOT been convicted of a white collar crime as CFO but some of them are already in those positions, as demonstrated by our most recent depression!
Onward Allusion
Member
My .02 . . .
Violent felons = banned for life
More than one drug related felony conviction = banned for life
Violent felons = banned for life
More than one drug related felony conviction = banned for life
Cosmoline
Member
The problem is we have far too many felonies and quasi-felonies (misdemeanors with sentences over a year). There used to be just a handful, all well known. But they number in the thousands now, maybe tens of thousands.
If we focus the state penal codes on the original core felonies, eliminate the federal penal code entirely, and curtail the creeping misdemeanor-felonies, then the problem largely corrects itself. Saves a heck of a lot of our money, too. Many billions.
If we focus the state penal codes on the original core felonies, eliminate the federal penal code entirely, and curtail the creeping misdemeanor-felonies, then the problem largely corrects itself. Saves a heck of a lot of our money, too. Many billions.
Bobson
Member
We don't. The concept of "rehabilitation" was created for victims and victims' families. Believing that sitting around thinking about what you've done wrong will lead to a new moral compass makes about as much sense as believing the Tooth Fairy exists, and that's being generous.
After spending even a short time in prison, I've come to realize just how flawed the correctional system is in America. Spending time surrounded with hardened criminals doesn't do anyone any good. Its almost impossible to behave like a normal person in a prison. If you do, you'll suffer for it. You can't expect people to simply change their habits and behavior when they walk out the front gate.
Are there exceptions? Wiithout question, yes, as there are for everything. Would I count on that? No. I vote for any convicted felon.
Mr.454
Member
If your dog ruins one of your shoes do you beat him everyday for the rest of his life? If you wouldn't punish an animal every day for the rest of its life why would you do that to a human? It really comes down to a question of what is more important a persons life, or a petty belief that they should be second class citizens? This focus on punishment is entirely self serving and really does not benefit society at all. You have to treat the cause of issues not the symptoms, without rehabilitation, education, and dignity this is impossible. In other words stripping a person of rights for the rest of their life can damage them mentally as well as in a social-economic sense.
- Status