quote Originally posted by Fats: OK, but how would you define hardcore crimes? Brad

Easy. Act of violence on another person. ( or threat of violence during the crime, like a robbery )

For other crimes you get 1 chance. Round 2, you are in for life.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-06-2013).]

not all state are the same ,, there is a wide variety of felony ,, I have a felony conviction for gun running & marijuana smuggleing,& cultivation,, I raised & smuggled marijuana to buy guns & medical supplies for the Nigaraguan Contras. I can now vote & own weapons
if you killed some one or performed numerous armed robberies or armed assaults you should not be able to legally purchase a fire arm..of course criminals could care less
I think every one should be able to own a weapon even a machine gun or automatic weapon many of you will desparately need a squad served, belt fed weapon in the near future
the democrat wackos & mental cases have no trouble getting thier deranged hands on a weapon to take out as many inocents or children as they can,,Over 90% of the mass killings are done by democrats how can we stop them?? ,most democrats are sickos who dislike America & are malajusted Politically Correct squeeks ..Have you ever known one??
case closed !!

[This message has been edited by uhlanstan (edited 12-06-2013).]

If you do the time you have paid for your crimes. Making it against the law is not going to stop the "criminal" from doing it anyways. Every small erosion into our rights no matter how well meaning is an erosion which weakens all our rights and makes it easier to chisel away some more later.

Now that said. I think they should lose their rights. The constitution is supposed to keep my opinion out of it though.

quote Originally posted by Red88FF: Making it against the law is not going to stop the "criminal" from doing it anyways..

I agree laws do not really deter most, but if we put them away forever, they wont have a 2nd chance to harm an innocent citizen.

If a convict wants a gun, he's going to get one. Why not create a legal way for them to obtain one? Some process that they would have to go thru to be able to protect their homes, property, and family.

Jonathan

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Felons should never be allowed to return to society. ( not talking a traffic ticket or jay walking of course.. but true hard core crime against fellow humans )

Death penalty for a felony ? I think there are three degrees of felons. Then we have state felons and US felons (federal prison). I almost became a felon. Because I was charged with a third DWI. Lying pricck cops. The video didn't match the "official report". Charges were dropped, because I could afford a lawyer. The first two I may have been able to ... get out of/be found innocent ... if I had the money. They offered a sweet "plead guilty" alternative.
Ok, a repeat DWI crime. What made it worse ? Neither with an accident and fully insured. Why not a felony the first time ? Why a felony the third time ?
Oh, I get a second chance ? Bull zhit. The first time was in 1981 and the legal definition was point ten percent (.10%) The second time was ?1987? and the definition was still .10%. The law used to say after ten years of abiding by the law, that another offense would be treated as a first offense. 'Cept they changed the law. My third alleged offense ? Twenty years later. They now want to count any past indiscretions and dropped the legal threshold to .08%. I was charged with a felony.
It started out at .15%. Now they want to drop it to .05%. Why ? They want more criminals to support the criminal justice cash machine. Used to be, you could refuse to incriminate yourself and refuse a breathalyzer. They couldn't convict. Now, it's a mandatory blood draw. If you don't consent to give up your rights, your PRIVILEGE to drive is taken away. Now, the wish is to drop it to .05%.
Little by little, they are dicking us.
I will tell you what. When the zhit hits the fan and we revolt, I want convicted felons on my side. I have no use for soccer moms who are squeaky clean, who can not do without their soccer mom metrosexual van or toilet paper. They are allowing the acceptable to have weapons.
Here is a history of DWI laws, which can take a good man's gun rights.

quote The first maximum BAC for driver was set in 1938: that year, it became illegal to drive with a BAC over .15, or 15%. This number was based on studies conducted by the American Medical Association and the National Safety council, who both agreed that research showed a person with a BAC under .15 could still drive reasonably well.

They could drive so well, and because their video cameras could not convince juries of guilt, they changed the rules to favor the gestapo. Now people have to give up their rights of self incrimination to keep a privilege.
I am not speaking up for drunk drivers. The gestapo is going after everybody.

quote Originally posted by Boostdreamer: If a convict wants a gun, he's going to get one. Why not create a legal way for them to obtain one? Some process that they would have to go thru to be able to protect their homes, property, and family. Jonathan

They lost those rights.

quote Originally posted by Fats: I haven't seen that one. I've seen the one where an 18 year old stole the roof panel from the tow truck at a stop light. The panel was worth anywhere from 2,000-6,000 dollars on its own, not counting the provenance of the part. Then the kid posted it on Facebook, with pictures saying what it was, and where he got it from. The "kid" in this case was an adult, and the crime he is accused of committing is certainly a felony. (Not counting his sheer stupidity.) Brad

That was probably the same one. It was a local news runup. They showed a red panel that looked like an air intake scoop. They said he picked it up at the crash site and was caught because he posted it on facebook. He was identified as a 16 year old.

Sounds like he just ran up and grabbed it from the truck? Unless he got into a confrontation with the driver, it was non-violent and he was charged with a felony just due to the value of the item.

He will be charged with a felony, and though it was a non-violent crime, if convicted, he's lost many of his rights and the ability for certain employment or even college subsidies like scholarships and grants.

Stan, aren't felonies a federal crime? They shouldn't vary from state to state.

quote Originally posted by cliffw: That is so wrong. They are rights. God given rights.

Which they forfeited. We ( at least I ) are not proposing we randomly take them away from people for fun, these people gave them up by harming others.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: They lost those rights.

Yeah, you tell them, they never ever have a right to defend themselves again. A rabid animal is the only ones who gives those up, NOT !

quote Originally posted by cliffw: That would solve the over population of the planet. We make thousands of new laws every year. Why put them away forever ? Three hots and cots gets expensive. Let's just shoot them dead.

Cheap labor.

And tho its been a while, i support them having to do something to earn the room/board ( and to repay their legal bills and restitution to their victim ), if they refuse, its out to the yard to starve. Their choice.


And before anyone says that is cruel, if i don't work i don't eat. Why should criminals be treated any better?

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-06-2013).]

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Easy. Act of violence on another person. ( or threat of violence during the crime, like a robbery ) For other crimes you get 1 chance. Round 2, you are in for life.

People should be allowed to own guns for personal protection no matter what, those convicted of a violent crime maybe should have that taken away, it is for the time they are in jail anyway. but to put someone in jail for life for a second offence, that's just insane. you were a kid once, I am guessing here but you never got away with something that was wrong?

Let me point out that different states define felonies differently. There are also federal felonies and state felonies. so all those white color criminals should never be allowed to own a gun, even after they do their time? How about the kid who picked up a part of that F&F guy who was just killed in a car wreck? so he should never be allowed to own a gun again? There really is something wrong with your thinking process.

You aren't one of those who think no one should have a gun but police and military are you?

Steve

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: You aren't one of those who think no one should have a gun but police and military are you? Steve

That was a joke, right? My opinion should be pretty clear to everyone by now.

As far as the 'kids' question, we were talking about adults choosing to commit crimes. If a child commits a non-violent crime, they get a 2nd chance too. If they commit a violent crime against another person, then they can never ever be trusted on the street again. No different than their adult counterpart. And yes i was a kid once. I got a second chance. I didn't blow it. I don't demand anything less from others that i would expect from myself.

And yes, the 'embezzler' ( for example ) has lost most his rights and should not get them back for 'good behavior'. He *chose* to break the law, that is the price he pays and that is the breaks. If he does it again, then his freedom has been relinquished permanently.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-06-2013).]

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: You aren't one of those who think no one should have a gun but police and military are you?

I am...

However, I respect your opinion to disagree. I don't mind hunting rifles...as long as they're properly locked up. I could even accept guns in a home...as long as they are properly locked up. Just don't agree with people walking around with them in public. My opinion.

To me, the thing that would make me happiest, would be all people buying guns should have undergone some sort of gun training. I.e. you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun unless you have successfully completed a gun safety & handling course. Many people buy guns for protection...but they have no clue what they have in they're hands or the respect they should show it. If they want it for protection then they should be competent to use it correctly. My opinion.

quote Originally posted by Neils88: I am... However, I respect your opinion to disagree. I don't mind hunting rifles...as long as they're properly locked up. I could even accept guns in a home...as long as they are properly locked up. Just don't agree with people walking around with them in public. My opinion. To me, the thing that would make me happiest, would be all people buying guns should have undergone some sort of gun training. I.e. you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun unless you have successfully completed a gun safety & handling course. Many people buy guns for protection...but they have no clue what they have in they're hands or the respect they should show it. If they want it for protection then they should be competent to use it correctly. My opinion.

And you can keep your opinion on your side of the border. Its not welcome here. Be sure to wave hi to the criminal outside your door, who knows you have no way to defend yourself as you are a pansy ass and guns ( and rights ) are 'scary'.

To answer the question posted.

Anyone committing violent crimes should be banned for life. If they don't want that consequence...don't commit the crime. Committed the crime? ...may as well learn to crochet...because if you pick up another gun you're back to playing "squeeze your ass cheeks 'cause bubba needs a new bi***t*c*h" in jail.

quote Originally posted by Neils88: To answer the question posted. Anyone committing violent crimes should be banned for life. If they don't want that consequence...don't commit the crime. Committed the crime? ...may as well learn to crochet...because if you pick up another gun you're back to playing "squeeze your ass cheeks 'cause bubba needs a new bi***t*c*h" in jail.

So guns are bad, rape is good? I'm seriously not following your logic here.

Brad

quote Originally posted by User00013170: And you can keep your opinion on your side of the border. Its not welcome here. Be sure to wave hi to the criminal outside your door, who knows you have no way to defend yourself as you are a pansy ass and guns ( and rights ) are 'scary'.

lol...first of all...my opinion is just that. My opinion. Shared by more than 50% of YOUR country...having said that, many Canadians feel the same way as you. Unlike you, I accept there are two sides to the argument.

From my experience, and knowledge, and the stats that show it to be true, most people breaking in to a house will not shoot their gun (if they have one) unless they encounter someone WITH a gun...i.e. you. ...and of course, as I mentioned, if you aren't trained, you're probably going to end up dead. I used to carry a gun while on duty...I am actually trained.

On a side note. I was also trained to handle someone with a gun. Were you? No? My odds of survival would appear to be better than yours. Have fun...don't forget to sleep with one paranoid eye open.

Back to the point that I clearly stated that you were not able to read. I said it was MY OPINION...not yours...but mine! Get over it.

quote Originally posted by Neils88: Back to the point that I clearly stated that you were not able to read. I said it was MY OPINION...not yours...but mine! Get over it.

Read what i said as well that your opinion was not welcome here. So who cant f-ing read again? Thought so.

And i have more training than you. I guarantee it. But nice try.

[This message has been edited by User00013170 (edited 12-06-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Fats: So guns are bad, rape is good? I'm seriously not following your logic here. Brad

No. Simply meant people who commit violent crimes should be banned for life. People committing non-violent crimes should be pardoned after doing their time.

The rape part referred to what you can expect when you get back into jail for carrying a gun when you're not allowed to...

quote Originally posted by Neils88: No. Simply meant people who commit violent crimes should be banned for life. People committing non-violent crimes should be pardoned after doing their time. The rape part referred to what you can expect when you get back into jail for carrying a gun when you're not allowed to...

How about those people who have an accident with a car, many are convicted of vehicular homicide, that is a felony?

Steve

[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 12-06-2013).]

quote Originally posted by 84fiero123: How about those people who have an accident with a car, many are convicted of vehicular homicide, that is a felony? Steve

I don't consider that a violent crime. Just poor judgement. Others could disagree.

Obviously I wasn't planning on analyzing every crime...unless someone wants to pay me the same as a judge

quote Originally posted by Neils88: I don't consider that a violent crime. Just poor judgement. Others could disagree. Obviously I wasn't planning on analyzing every crime...unless someone wants to pay me the same as a judge

That's one of the problems with your point of view. Who gets to decide what is and isn't violent? Right now people can be arrested for smoking a joint, and many people consider it a violent offense. It's said that buying marijuana funds drug wars in Columbia, and Mexico.

Right now there is a person being brought up on felony assault because he forced the Police to shoot at him, they missed and hit innocent bystanders.

In the article I posted in another thread a man was arrested for sending 8,000 dollars to a tribe in Africa, because it had ties to terrorism.

All of these things are non-violent in my eyes, yet one can easily argue that they all can support violence, and therefore are just as bad.

So who gets to decide?

Brad

quote Originally posted by Fats: That's one of the problems with your point of view. Who gets to decide what is and isn't violent? Right now people can be arrested for smoking a joint, and many people consider it a violent offense. It's said that buying marijuana funds drug wars in Columbia, and Mexico. Right now there is a person being brought up on felony assault because he forced the Police to shoot at him, they missed and hit innocent bystanders. In the article I posted in another thread a man was arrested for sending 8,000 dollars to a tribe in Africa, because it had ties to terrorism. All of these things are non-violent in my eyes, yet one can easily argue that they all can support violence, and therefore are just as bad. So who gets to decide? Brad

Wow...it was just a point of view...not a legal document to be used to decide the fate of all criminals walking out of jail.

The concept of violent crimes isn't that complex. I don't need to sit here and analyze every crime on PFF...what would be the point? Lawyers can write up the documents to define it. Judges can debate it. The public can scream because they disagree with everything. Normal daily business.

I just proposed a line in the sand with a little grey area on either side.

I understand and respect that, but not many people will, that's what I'm pointing out.

There is no sane way to say "hey, just this one certain percentage of people" without someone coming along and bastardizing your point to get their agenda passed.

Therefore I believe, and it's only an opinion like yours, that the only way is to step back to the original intent. Once a prisoner has served his time, including any probation deemed necessary by courts, he is to be paid in full for his crimes, He no longer has to register, he can vote, own a gun, do anything that someone who hasn't been in trouble can do. If he's dangerous and cannot own a gun because of that, he shouldn't be released from prison. Marking them as "dangerous" means that the system in place doesn't work, and is broken.

The voting part of felons is in place just to keep them from voting out crooked politicians IMO.

Brad

Did the wives and children of felons make the choice to give up their rights to be protected in their homes by the man of the house after he comes home? If I understand correctly, there can't be guns in the home even if they belong to another adult.

Jonathan

too many undefined variables.
ok, let's take a hypothetical case.
let's say that i have been (hypothetical, remember) convicted of attempted murder with a firearm. i will, of course claim innocence. i serve, say, 7 years, and am released. should i be allowed legal access to firearms?
let's further speculate what should happen if i am again convicted of a similar offense. how should society respond?

There is something about that part in the 2nd amendment....that's says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" that doesn't sit well with me. Yes felons can be dangerous, but it appears to me that the second amendment is CRYSTAL clear that this right should not and cannot be revoked.

not sure how they justify it....Shall not be infringed seems pretty damn straight forward.

quote Originally posted by lurker: ok, let's take a hypothetical case. let's say that i have been (hypothetical, remember) convicted of attempted murder with a firearm. i will, of course claim innocence. i serve, say, 7 years, and am released. should i be allowed legal access to firearms?

Yes, maybe, only in your home and during obvious hunting outings, but ... the legal system is rigged. Many times they over charge you on crimes to get you to plead guilty to a lessor crime. I think all plea bargains should not be allowed. Just as Miranda rights have now become accepted, the police do all kinds of other things which are not actually fair. They also have unlimited resources which citizens can not match. I think things would change if a citizen had a level playing field ... say such as the system would have to reimburse a citizen for all costs if he is found innocent. Then there are the specifics of the circumstances of "attempted murder" which I think should be examined.

quote Originally posted by lurker: let's further speculate what should happen if i am again convicted of a similar offense. how should society respond?

Similar how ? I believe robbery with a gun, which could escalate into a firearm injury, is reason enough to restrict one's gun rights (even a first time).

quote Originally posted by Neils88: To me, the thing that would make me happiest, would be all people buying guns should have undergone some sort of gun training. I.e. you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun unless you have successfully completed a gun safety & handling course. Many people buy guns for protection...but they have no clue what they have in they're hands or the respect they should show it. If they want it for protection then they should be competent to use it correctly. My opinion.

That seems reasonable but is it ? Now the government has to define the level of training, . It can pick winners and losers. Being gun ownership is a right, the training should be free. A little off topic but I think people should be trained to be parents before they can have children. If they can not take care of their children and provide for them (reasonably per circumstances) they should not be allowed to have another.

quote Originally posted by NickD3.4: There is something about that part in the 2nd amendment....that's says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" that doesn't sit well with me. Yes felons can be dangerous, but it appears to me that the second amendment is CRYSTAL clear that this right should not and cannot be revoked. not sure how they justify it....Shall not be infringed seems pretty damn straight forward.

Rights and freedoms apply only to honest law abiding citizens. i see no conflict.

I carry my recorder to protect myself from lying cops...not to keep them honest. Ive also never been convicted of a felony. Theres also a big difference from being locked in jail overnite to being convicted and sent to prison for 10 years. We already have extra time added for use of a gun (never enforced). Whatever happened to 3 time loser anyway. 3 convictions for a felony should lock you away for life period, since they cant execute you. Prisons wouldnt be nearly as crowded if they executed every 3 time convicted felons and everyone would be a lot safer. Its obvious to me if you got a free pass already, and still followed it with 3 more convictions, your not reabilitateable. The people shouldnt have to pay for your room and board for the rest of your natural life.

"Says the man who carries a recorder to keep police honest. I understand your feelings but I don't understand what you are saying. We, the beacon of freedom to the world, have more persons incarcerated in prison per capita than any other country on Earth. It is big business. When ever we fill up a lock up (prison or jail), we build more and fill them up too. We have to. When we can not afford to build more, we let them out early. Sometimes, actually many times, we contract out the housing of derelicts to private companies or other jurisdictions. Prison construction is, and always has been, booming. Multi billion dollar legal costs. Fines. Jail guards, police, court personnel, bondsman, medical staff, the number of employees the legal system creates is mind boggling.
To the thread question ... no. What part of the second amendment do we not understand. I can see if one uses a firearm in the commission of a crime, maybe. In those cases I would prefer to see a longer prison sentence. ( Speaking of which ... why do we let them out early ? )"

So your ok with a released felon, who was in prison 3 times (1 for murder, 1 for rape, 1 for armed robbery), applying and getting a concealed gun permit ?

[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 12-07-2013).]

quote Originally posted by User00013170: Rights and freedoms apply only to honest law abiding citizens. i see no conflict.

And thanks to our legal system there are no "law abiding" citizens. Seriously. Even if you sit in your house all day there is a high chance that you are a law breaker. That's how the system is rigged.

It's like playing slot machines in Vegas. Every once in awhile someone wins, just to keep everyone else trying. But the odds are not in your favor, at all.

Brad

quote Originally posted by Fats: And thanks to our legal system there are no "law abiding" citizens. Seriously. Even if you sit in your house all day there is a high chance that you are a law breaker. That's how the system is rigged. It's like playing slot machines in Vegas. Every once in awhile someone wins, just to keep everyone else trying. But the odds are not in your favor, at all. Brad

Hey now, we have the finest legal system that money can buy, in other words if you got enough money you can buy the legal system and a verdict, that is what our legal system has come to.

our laws are all written by our representatives who are for the most part lawyers and just out for themselves and their buddies in the legal system who earn more and more every year because you have to be a dam lawyer to understand a law and lets face it most people don't understand most of our laws as they are written. And who wins in this case, the lawyers who get hundreds of dollars an hour for anything they do, they get a phone call from a client they charge you for an hour, even if the call is only a few min. long. they get a call from the otherside they carge the client for another hour even if the call only lasted a few min.

Our legal system is broken and because of that the only ones who can win a case against them are people with enough money to pay said lawyers. I learned just how bad this was while in TN, the judge refused to let us represent ourselves in a civil matter that really didn't require a lawyer, but because the judge said we had to have a lawyer we had to pay for legal representation, that was way over priced while the person who had not paid us board for her horses because she was a TNn all her life and married to a doctor she got to sit back and enjoy the show.

Money is all our legal system is about, the more you have the more you can get away with and steal from those with very little.

Steve

[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 12-07-2013).]

quote Originally posted by Fats: And thanks to our legal system there are no "law abiding" citizens. Seriously. Even if you sit in your house all day there is a high chance that you are a law breaker. That's how the system is rigged. It's like playing slot machines in Vegas. Every once in awhile someone wins, just to keep everyone else trying. But the odds are not in your favor, at all. Brad

I will argue that the system is not flawed, its how its being abused that is the problem.